One Million Moms complains about Burger King Ad with 'the D-word'

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,755
14,624
Here
✟1,211,516.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Connotations are the definitions we apply to a word or phrase above and beyond their dictionary definition.

"This is a cheap phone," can mean something quite different from "this is an expensive phone," because of the connotations, even though the two words are synonymous.

Similarly, there is a big difference between a "butt dial," and a "booty call," even though individually, these words in both phrases are similar. ;)

In some cases yes, however there are dozens of examples where two words could be used interchangeably in terms of connotation, context, meaning, emotion, etc... and one would be considered okay, but the other would be considered "profane"

Penn & Teller had a show (who's name I can't say on the forums) that had some rather interesting analysis on the subject...but again, I can't link any of it due to forum rules lol
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
In some cases yes, however there are dozens of examples where two words could be used interchangeably in terms of connotation, context, meaning, emotion, etc... and one would be considered okay, but the other would be considered "profane"

Penn & Teller had a show (who's name I can't say on the forums) that had some rather interesting analysis on the subject...but again, I can't link any of it due to forum rules lol

I am well aware of that show; I'm a big fan.

I especially loved how for one episode, they changed the Show's title to "Penn and Teller: Humbug!" Noting that "humbug" was the Victorian English equivalent of that particular word.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ThatRobGuy
Upvote 0

Nithavela

our world is happy and mundane
Apr 14, 2007
28,164
19,616
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟495,265.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
I am well aware of that show; I'm a big fan.

I especially loved how for one episode, they changed the Show's title to "Penn and Teller: Humbug!" Noting that "humbug" was the Victorian English equivalent of that particular word.
Some guy used to stream that show on Winamp.

Man.. Winamp.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Some guy used to stream that show on Winamp.

Man.. Winamp.

I remember winamp...

If you have a Showtime subscription, the show is still available via Amazon Prime Video... just sayin'
 
Upvote 0

Nithavela

our world is happy and mundane
Apr 14, 2007
28,164
19,616
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟495,265.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
I remember winamp...

If you have a Showtime subscription, the show is still available via Amazon Prime Video... just sayin'
I think I've watched it enough.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,755
14,624
Here
✟1,211,516.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I am well aware of that show; I'm a big fan.

I especially loved how for one episode, they changed the Show's title to "Penn and Teller: Humbug!" Noting that "humbug" was the Victorian English equivalent of that particular word.

That's the exact episode I had in mind :)
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,755
14,624
Here
✟1,211,516.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Some guy used to stream that show on Winamp.

Man.. Winamp.

LOL, my old "Ghost Image" (another outdated piece of software reference) for my PC backups used to contain that app along with other classics like Limewire and AOL Instant Messenger
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,429
24,362
Baltimore
✟561,478.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Some guy used to stream that show on Winamp.

Man.. Winamp.

I remember winamp...

If you have a Showtime subscription, the show is still available via Amazon Prime Video... just sayin'

About 12 years ago, I met the guy who wrote Winamp when he was pitching a different piece of software to my boss. At the time, nobody in the meeting knew who he was. It wasn't until after he left that somebody else in the office caught wind of things and explained to us that he was worth more than all of us combined, several times over. :sigh:
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,160
1,654
Passing Through
✟459,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I still find the concept of "bad words" to be somewhat comical.

At it's core, it's basically the notion that "one sound deeply offends me" even though it has the same underlying meaning as a different sound that has the identical meaning and contextual use in the English language.

That's why people who are trying to be "moral" use "replacement words" for instances where other people would use "bad words" to convey the exact same meaning and emotion behind the statement.

...and let's be frank here, if someone looks at everything Burger King does, says, and sells to people, and their objection is to the d-word being in the commercial, they're coming from a place of moral posturing and not any sort of concern of the well-being of the public.

"It's fine to serve horrible, processed, sub-par food to people, market your unhealthy product to the youth, promote unhealthy lifestyles, fund corrupt factory farming industries, etc... but whatever you do, don't you dare use any PG-13 words while doing it...that's going too far!"
Oh, so you would like to restrain the free market too, just in terms of corporations. Got it.

Totally agree with you on the nasty food. We, the people, could do something about it by refusing to purchase it, but people are lazy and will get whatever thing they can quickly.

We the people can also decide that profanity has no place in commercials, as has been the case for the last what, hundred years? We really don't have to advocate descent as a culture; it is already happening.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Oh, so you would like to restrain the free market too, just in terms of corporations. Got it.

No worse that what One Million Moms are trying to do.

Totally agree with you on the nasty food. We, the people, could do something about it by refusing to purchase it, but people are lazy and will get whatever thing they can quickly.

People are also poor. A BK salad costs $5.59; a Whopper costs $3.49. Healthy food is fast becoming a luxury item... and how healthy is their salad, really?

We the people can also decide that profanity has no place in commercials, as has been the case for the last what, hundred years? We really don't have to advocate descent as a culture; it is already happening.

We the people can also decide that profanity has no place in politics. Our current president's got the foulest public mouth since Andrew Jackson, and yet One Million Moms supports, endorses, and defends him at every opportunity.

We the people can decide that consistency has a big place in our lives... but clearly we decided otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,160
1,654
Passing Through
✟459,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No worse that what One Million Moms are trying to do.



People are also poor. A BK salad costs $5.59; a Whopper costs $3.49. Healthy food is fast becoming a luxury item... and how healthy is their salad, really?



We the people can also decide that profanity has no place in politics. Our current president's got the foulest public mouth since Andrew Jackson, and yet One Million Moms supports, endorses, and defends him at every opportunity.

We the people can decide that consistency has a big place in our lives... but clearly we decided otherwise.
Million moms merely expressed the appropriate opinion that profanity is out of place in advertising. It has no authority to shut anyone down.

A head of lettuce will make several salads and doesn't cost as much as a fast-food prepared salad.

I agree. Profanity has no place amongst adults at ALL. It is very adolescent behavior and immediately diminishes the power of what one is saying, whether it is the President or anyone else. He only happened because Hillary was the opponent.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Million moms merely expressed the appropriate opinion that profanity is out of place in advertising. It has no authority to shut anyone down.

They have every right to try to shame BK into changing their behavior.... the rest of us have every right to comment on BK's far more serious offenses.

A head of lettuce will make several salads and doesn't cost as much as a fast-food prepared salad.

It does in terms of time... and time is money. Fast food is just that... fast. It's not an issue of laziness; sometimes it's about maintaining productivity.

I agree. Profanity has no place amongst adults at ALL.

I would disagree -- there is a time and place when a "gosh darn it all to heck" simply isn't going to suffice... such as when one stubs their toe on a table leg.

Case in point: In 1992, Paul McCartney released a controversial song called "Big Boys Bickering":

LYRICS:

big boys bickering,
that's what they're doin' ev'ryday.
big boys bickering,
[F-bomb]in' it up for ev'ryone, ev'ryone.

guess while they're betting on the track,
they're tryin' to win your money back.
all of the taxes that you paid,
went to fund the masquerade.

He defended his use of profanity in an interview: "...I'm talking about, erm, the ozone layer and the big hole in it, fifty mile wide hole. I don't think well that's a flipping hole, I think that's a [F-Bomb]ing big hole!"

And Sir Paul isn't the first Beatle to go blue to make a point -- in 1972, John Lennon released "Woman is the [n-bomb] of the World,"

Lyrics
Woman is the [N-bomb] of the world
Yes she is, think about it
Woman is the [N-bomb] of the world
Think about it, do something about it

We make her paint her face and dance
If she won't be a slave, we say that she don't love us
If she's real, we say she's trying to be a man
While putting her down we pretend that she is above us


And interestingly enough, when I posted the famous "Frankly my Dear, I don't give a damn," scene from Gone With the Wind, I was reminded of then the moral guardians of that time were similarly outraged. Now of course, the studio censors (The Hays Code was in its infancy) were outraged at the script and made their own suggestions:


1D274907376084-today-gone-with-wind-141205-01.fit-760w.jpg

But that line (arguably one of the most famous in all cinema) was in Margaret Mitchell's original book, so producer David O. Selznick and his editor Val Lewton fought back, and the original line stayed in.

Personally, I'm glad they did.

We call these words "F-bombs" or "N-bombs" for a reason -- sometimes you need the heavy artillery; put the pop guns away and drop the bomb.

It is very adolescent behavior and immediately diminishes the power of what one is saying, whether it is the President or anyone else. He only happened because Hillary was the opponent.

First of all, pointing the finger at Hillary and claiming "it's all her fault!" is pre-adolescent behavior... a little profanity might therefore be an improvement.

Second, even if I were to accept that rationalization (and I do not) for Donald's campaign behavior, he is now three years into his presidency, and has shown little to no improvement. And from the very same moral guardians such as One Million Moms... I hear silence.

Why should they talk, when for a few shiny trinkets from Donald, they will happily look the other way? All his other followers do.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,755
14,624
Here
✟1,211,516.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Oh, so you would like to restrain the free market too, just in terms of corporations. Got it.

Totally agree with you on the nasty food. We, the people, could do something about it by refusing to purchase it, but people are lazy and will get whatever thing they can quickly.

We the people can also decide that profanity has no place in commercials, as has been the case for the last what, hundred years? We really don't have to advocate descent as a culture; it is already happening.

Not trying to restrain the free market at all.

If people want to eat a Croi'sammwich (if that's how they spell it???) and Hash browns for breakfast, a whopper & fries with a soda for lunch, and another whopper and fries for dinner, that's up to them. If people want to complain about the d-word in a commercial, that's also up to them. At the end of the day, if Burger King wants to sell a 3 lbs cheeseburger and a gallon of soda to Joe Smith for $1, that transaction is between Joe and BK, it's got nothing to do with me.

...just saying that if a group is going to target burger king for using the D-word (but not for the sub-par junk they have in their food), then they're coming from a place of trying to show off "look how moral and upstanding I am!" and not from a place of actually caring about what harms the public. Hearing the d-word in a commercial is of no consequence and isn't going to cause any sort of real damage to anyone. However, one could make an argument that marketing sup-par, unhealthy food to people (especially impressionable younger people) does have some consequences.


Maybe it's just my imagination on this part, but I find it odd that I've never heard of a "conservative/moral" action groups targeting fast food restaurants for commercial content before...and many have used scantily clad women and innuendo in the past (Including BK...Brooke Burke in a skimpy outfit saying 'come and get it' on a swing comes to mind), but now, out of the blue, when a commercial promoting a vegan product (the vegan market tends to skew left and has a perception of being a "lefty" ideology) uses probably the least offensive of all of the "bad words", and now all of the sudden there's a fuss? Seems a bit odd.

Why I think it's a bit odd is because Tim Wildmon (president of the "American Family Association", the parent group over "One Million Moms) has openly supported Trump (even joined his "Faith Advisory" committee)...and I think we all know that Trump has used words that both include the d-word, and even use the "worse" "bad words".

If "Bad Words being used on national TV" is really something that's a concern for them, why have they not chastised Trump for using bad words on TV? Trump had guys like Toby Keith perform at his inauguration, and Toby has used "the D-word" in numerous songs.


It just comes across as selective outrage on their part...

For them to get mad now about a swear word in advertising, when it happens to be a commercial promoting the left-leaning value (or at least a value that's perceived to be left-leaning by most of the public) of eating less red meat and picking plant based alternatives seems fishy (no pun intended)
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,160
1,654
Passing Through
✟459,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
...just saying that if a group is going to target burger king for using the D-word (but not for the sub-par junk they have in their food), then they're coming from a place of trying to show off "look how moral and upstanding I am!" and not from a place of actually caring about what harms the public. Hearing the d-word in a commercial is of no consequence and isn't going to cause any sort of real damage to anyone. However, one could make an argument that marketing sup-par, unhealthy food to people (especially impressionable younger people) does have some consequences.


Maybe it's just my imagination on this part, but I find it odd that I've never heard of a "conservative/moral" action groups targeting fast food restaurants for commercial content before...and many have used scantily clad women and innuendo in the past (Including BK...Brooke Burke in a skimpy outfit saying 'come and get it' on a swing comes to mind), but now, out of the blue, when a commercial promoting a vegan product (the vegan market tends to skew left and has a perception of being a "lefty" ideology) uses probably the least offensive of all of the "bad words", and now all of the sudden there's a fuss? Seems a bit odd.

Why I think it's a bit odd is because Tim Wildmon (president of the "American Family Association", the parent group over "One Million Moms) has openly supported Trump (even joined his "Faith Advisory" committee)...and I think we all know that Trump has used words that both include the d-word, and even use the "worse" "bad words".

If "Bad Words being used on national TV" is really something that's a concern for them, why have they not chastised Trump for using bad words on TV? Trump had guys like Toby Keith perform at his inauguration, and Toby has used "the D-word" in numerous songs.


It just comes across as selective outrage on their part...

For them to get mad now about a swear word in advertising, when it happens to be a commercial promoting the left-leaning value (or at least a value that's perceived to be left-leaning by most of the public) of eating less red meat and picking plant based alternatives seems fishy (no pun intended)

Ah, you are exhibiting the perfect example of the fallacy of relative privation, i.e. appealing to worse problems.

This is unrelated. So stipulated that fast food is bad.

However, that does not speak to whether we should change public policy which has always restricted profanity spew in advertising, which bombards us 24/7 (now the latter is a real offense...to go off on an unrelated subject, as you did).

It is and always has been restricted. It should remain so, as an issue of policy.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Ah, you are exhibiting the perfect example of the fallacy of relative privation, i.e. appealing to worse problems.

This is unrelated. So stipulated that fast food is bad.

It's the same problem -- the prevalence of profanity. (assuming, of course, that this is indeed a problem).

However, that does not speak to whether we should change public policy which has always restricted profanity spew in advertising, which bombards us 24/7 (now the latter is a real offense...to go off on an unrelated subject, as you did).

It is and always has been restricted. It should remain so, as an issue of policy.

Nevertheless, if profanity is bad in advertising, it stands to reason that it's bad in other places... places that have a lot more impact on your life than whether you have a Whopper or a Big Mac for lunch.

(personally, I steer clear of all big chain fast food stores, and prefer my local pizza place -- they serve a buffalo chicken slice that earns its "d-word"!)
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,755
14,624
Here
✟1,211,516.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Ah, you are exhibiting the perfect example of the fallacy of relative privation, i.e. appealing to worse problems.

This is unrelated. So stipulated that fast food is bad.

However, that does not speak to whether we should change public policy which has always restricted profanity spew in advertising, which bombards us 24/7 (now the latter is a real offense...to go off on an unrelated subject, as you did).

It is and always has been restricted. It should remain so, as an issue of policy.

The accusation of relative privation, in my opinion, is often used as a dodge when someone is trying to either A) justify, or B) tip toe around having to acknowledge, cases of people exhibiting selective outrage or inconsistency.

Not to mention, the statements I've made don't fall into that category as I wasn't trying to use one to justify the other, or claim that people had to ignore one or the other.
Not as bad as - RationalWiki

My exact statement at the very beginning of the post was:
If people want to eat a Croi'sammwich (if that's how they spell it???) and Hash browns for breakfast, a whopper & fries with a soda for lunch, and another whopper and fries for dinner, that's up to them. If people want to complain about the d-word in a commercial, that's also up to them.
(I notice that happens to be the part you snipped out of my post when quoting it)

My statements clearly pertained to simply highlighting a logical inconsistency and an example of moral posturing. And if you'll notice, there are exceptions to that fallacy rule with regards to scenarios of prioritization, limited resources, and lesser of two evils.

An example of the fallacy you describe would be when someone talks about the gun death rate and how to address it from a legislative aspect, and someone else replies back with mentioning that car accidents kill more people than guns.

You also appear to be operating on the premise that it's just "a given" that the d-word in a commercial should be universally accepted as "bad" when that's not the case as there's no particular cited data that proves it is (unlike the unhealthy food scenario, for which there is mountains of peer reviewed research). You're taking a subjective stance and appear to be putting it in the same bucket as an objective one.

And with regards to logical fallacies, in general, these two statements you've made:
It is and always has been restricted. It should remain so, as an issue of policy.

We the people can also decide that profanity has no place in commercials, as has been the case for the last what, hundred years?


...appear to be treading on the line of one known as "appeal to tradition".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,160
1,654
Passing Through
✟459,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The accusation of relative privation, in my opinion, is often used as a dodge when someone is trying to either A) justify, or B) tip toe around having to acknowledge, cases of people exhibiting selective outrage or inconsistency.

Not to mention, the statements I've made don't fall into that category as I wasn't trying to use one to justify the other, or claim that people had to ignore one or the other.


...


You also appear to be operating on the premise that it's just "a given" that the d-word in a commercial should be universally accepted as "bad" when that's not the case as there's no particular cited data that proves it is (unlike the unhealthy food scenario, for which there is mountains of peer reviewed research). You're taking a subjective stance and appear to be putting it in the same bucket as an objective one.

...

line of one known as "appeal to tradition".


In reality, that is exactly what you did; you used one to justify the other, by comparing the two, and authoritatively stating, ipse dixit, that "profanity isn't harmful" , but the worse thing to which you are comparing it - fast food consumption - is.

YOU: "...just saying that if a group is going to target burger king for using the D-word (but not for the sub-par junk they have in their food), then they're coming from a place of trying to show off "look how moral and upstanding I am!" and not from a place of actually caring about what harms the public. Hearing the d-word in a commercial is of no consequence and isn't going to cause any sort of real damage to anyone. However, one could make an argument that marketing sup-par, unhealthy food to people (especially impressionable younger people) does have some consequences."

You simultaneously highlight moral posturing WHILE posturing morally, that profanity harms no one. :) You are merely authoritatively decreeing it.

One cannot make this stuff up. :)

Appeal to tradition is out of place here, because we have indeed decided as a matter of public policy that we don't want our children spewing profanity everywhere as daily speech. Perhaps you have decided otherwise for your own, but this public policy is indeed based on reason, and on research, on the basis that children repeat and mimic everything they hear.

Since you seem unfamiliar with this basic building block of families: Modeling Behavior for Children Has Long-Lasting Effects
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,755
14,624
Here
✟1,211,516.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
YOU: "...just saying that if a group is going to target burger king for using the D-word (but not for the sub-par junk they have in their food), then they're coming from a place of trying to show off "look how moral and upstanding I am!" and not from a place of actually caring about what harms the public. Hearing the d-word in a commercial is of no consequence and isn't going to cause any sort of real damage to anyone. However, one could make an argument that marketing sup-par, unhealthy food to people (especially impressionable younger people) does have some consequences."

You simultaneously highlight moral posturing WHILE posturing morally, that profanity harms no one. :) You are merely authoritatively decreeing it.

One cannot make this stuff up. :)

I think that statement still holds up...

If someone is truly claiming that they want to prevent children from experiencing harm (which is one of the key stated purposes of their organization), and they wish to demonstrate that they're acting consistently and aren't just trying to show off how moral they are for everyone else to see, they need to establish and clarify a few things...

A) that hearing a particular sound on TV does in fact cause harm (I'm not aware of any data that would suggest that it does)
B) if by some means they can prove "A)", they need to give a cogent argument as for why they prioritized that over other things.

What I said in the section you quoted is true.

If you took a person, who wasn't conditioned or indoctrinated into thinking a particular word was "bad", and then exposed them to that word, then gave them a full examination, you'd not find any ill effects. However, if you took a person, and gave them very unhealthy food on a regular basis for a few months, you would be able to test for that and detect it clinically.

In a nutshell: there are tangible and quantifiable tests that can demonstrate the harmful effects of bad food and whether or not a person has been regularly consuming it, to my knowledge, there's no test that can be run that can accurately detect whether or not someone heard a bad word.

Invoking the "you're using the 'not as bad as' logical fallacy" is predicated on the idea that you can actually prove that both of those things are objectively bad in the first place.

If you can't, then the objection to what you deem as a "bad word" is entirely subjective and doesn't hold any more weight than an objection to what someone deems as a "bad shirt color".

Appeal to tradition is out of place here, because we have indeed decided as a matter of public policy that we don't want our children spewing profanity everywhere as daily speech. Perhaps you have decided otherwise for your own, but this public policy is indeed based on reason, and on research, on the basis that children repeat and mimic everything they hear.

"We" haven't decided anything.

Point to the law you're referring to, and we'll closely evaluate which entity passed the law, and in what year, and we'll continue from there...

I'm not seeing anything, legally speaking, that says it's restricted for advertising in any special way outside of what would be enforced on a typical TV show.

I see on the FCC website where they cite a 1964 ruling as the basis for their right in restricting content. However, I'm not one who believes that what the majority of society decided (or supported) in the 60's is indicative of "We have decided".

This link gives the history:
FACTBOX-History of TV profanity, nudity rules in U.S.


That's why I mentioned the "appeal to tradition". The premise that because there was a consensus opinion on something at one point in time, that means that the aforementioned consensus should still be honored today and has any validity, falls in line with that fallacy.

I can point to a number of social/public consensuses that were around in that era that we certainly wouldn't want enforced today.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,160
1,654
Passing Through
✟459,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I think that statement still holds up...

If someone is truly claiming that they want to prevent children from experiencing harm (which is one of the key stated purposes of their organization), and they wish to demonstrate that they're acting consistently and aren't just trying to show off how moral they are for everyone else to see, they need to establish and clarify a few things...

A) that hearing a particular sound on TV does in fact cause harm (I'm not aware of any data that would suggest that it does)
B) if by some means they can prove "A)", they need to give a cogent argument as for why they prioritized that over other things.

What I said in the section you quoted is true.

If you took a person, who wasn't conditioned or indoctrinated into thinking a particular word was "bad", and then exposed them to that word, then gave them a full examination, you'd not find any ill effects. However, if you took a person, and gave them very unhealthy food on a regular basis for a few months, you would be able to test for that and detect it clinically.

In a nutshell: there are tangible and quantifiable tests that can demonstrate the harmful effects of bad food and whether or not a person has been regularly consuming it, to my knowledge, there's no test that can be run that can accurately detect whether or not someone heard a bad word.

Invoking the "you're using the 'not as bad as' logical fallacy" is predicated on the idea that you can actually prove that both of those things are objectively bad in the first place.

If you can't, then the objection to what you deem as a "bad word" is entirely subjective and doesn't hold any more weight than an objection to what someone deems as a "bad shirt color".



"We" haven't decided anything.

Point to the law you're referring to, and we'll closely evaluate which entity passed the law, and in what year, and we'll continue from there...

I'm not seeing anything, legally speaking, that says it's restricted for advertising in any special way outside of what would be enforced on a typical TV show.

I see on the FCC website where they cite a 1964 ruling as the basis for their right in restricting content. However, I'm not one who believes that what the majority of society decided (or supported) in the 60's is indicative of "We have decided".

This link gives the history:
FACTBOX-History of TV profanity, nudity rules in U.S.


That's why I mentioned the "appeal to tradition". The premise that because there was a consensus opinion on something at one point in time, that means that the aforementioned consensus should still be honored today and has any validity, falls in line with that fallacy.

I can point to a number of social/public consensuses that were around in that era that we certainly wouldn't want enforced today.

What you reiterated in your word salad above is false, as I stated clearly. Not going into that mess again to restate the same points to you over and over. Reread what I already said again.

Yes, "we" have decided that profanity in advertising is inappropriate, your 8 year old recap notwithstanding. In the U.S., the FCC determines what is permitted in broadcasting; it has always prohibited profanity during all hours children are likely to be viewing. Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts

You are not a parent, I suspect, which is one of the several reasons why you cannot grasp this.
 
Upvote 0