Mother gets POP ad removed..scared kids

[esquire]

That story almost makes me ashamed to live in Canada.

Quotes Esquire: "I live in the Metropolitan Detroit Area, which is right across the Detroit River from Windsor, Ontario. The funny thing about the whole thing is that in Windsor it is legal for women to be topless in public, yet a cartoon ad of a fictional character holding a sword is deemed offensive and improper for display on public transportation"

I don't think there's anything funny about giving women the same right that men have enjoyed for decades. How can you compare a part of the human anatomy (something that is natural and wholesome) to an object that is implicit of violence (which is illegal)?

Yeah, I don't think you get it. I was pointing out the irony that the city was removing an ad because someone thought it was offensive in that it scared her children. However, the same municipality allows partial public nudity which I am sure offends some people (not me of course ;) ). It has nothing to do with human anatomy, it has to do with public opinion. Moreover, I don't have a problem giving women the right to walk around topless just like men, however I would outlaw men walking around topless, particular at Detroit Lions games.

[-hellvin-]

Oh my gosh...I didn't expect this thread to make me laugh so hard. Funny comments.

Hilarious article too.

[lendelin]

I think many of you haven't had much experience with kids when you belittle the fact that images such as those in the ads on the buses can be fearful to them. I used to be afraid of the dark and clowns, but that doesn't mean my parents were too easy on me, raising me to be a wimp, being overprotective, or any of the other insulting comments about how the woman is raising her children.

I understand your position very well, and no one should make fun of the kid who is scared. I was scared as a kid, I was afraid if the dark, I watched secretly ghost movies with my older brothers and got scared.

For a child it's natural to be scared, kids even WANT to be scared! They want to experience fear, that's why they want to hear scary fairy tales over and over again. It's even good to be scared, experience fear, that's waht makes us careful. (even as adults we still have it in us. We ride roller coasters and do bungie jumping in order to be scared and more importantly, to face our fear and to control it!)

It's up to the parents to teach their kids how to deal with fear, not to eliminate all possible fear factors in society. If a kid doesn't learn to face fear and to control it, it's the biggest dis-service a parent can do to their child.

The belittling comments about the child was a channel for anger about the mother. They missed the target.

When it comes to children, all of this doesn't makes sense. It's about adults, and adults only, who use their children for their oversensitive, intolerant and in the end dictatorial agenda. They wanna shape the world as THEY see it, and everyone has to follow.

Everyone knows how DUMB this thing is, and still it happens. It's not only an effort, it is SUCCESSFUL! The bus company took the ad down because of ONE child, and probably becasuie of a a couple of other poltically motivated parents who hopped on the bandwagon. WHY is common sense lost, WHY is such a ridiculous thing successful?

[Queen Of The Felines]

Quit going off on the kids. Everybody was/is scared of something stupid at one point...hell, I used to be terrified of balloons and escalators as a kid, did I grow up to be a big pussy? :roll:

Now if you want to go off on the mother for her "think of the children!" bs, then I'll join you, but to call the kids pussies? C'mon, they're too young to know any better.

Oh btw, Cap Nintendo? What are you going to do if your kid cries, beat the shit out of him and tell him to shut him up? :roll:

Kristine

[-hellvin-]

Oh btw, Cap Nintendo? What are you going to do if your kid cries, beat the shit out of him and tell him to shut him up? :roll:

Gotta teach children some tough love.





Hahaha.

[fahrvergnugen]

Still hovering off-topic a bit, but there's one item in your list I feel compelled to pick apart - probably because it's the easiest one - and that's "the rise in the last four years in the practice of 'Free speech zones'".

Free Speech Zones are not the invention of the Bush Administration, despite the Left's assertion that they are. These zones are set up by the Secret Service in the interest of protecting the well-being President (that's their job, y'know), regardless of who he is. When Clinton was campaigning for re-election in 1996 he came to Albuquerque three times. I saw him speak each time and each time there was a little area around 1/4 of a mile away where all the far-right and far-left weirdos could wear their cammies (or flannel in the case of the liberals) wave their signs and beat their scrawny little chests in self-righteous indignation at Clinton's Presidency.

In other words, the policy is not new, it's just that the Left is whining louder about it than they have in years' past.

I have no idea how far back this policy goes, but when you consider how vitriolic and organized activists can be these days it makes sense. A casual glance at websites for PETA, Greenpeace, ANSWER and other "peace through superior hatred" organizations shows them proudly making photo ops of throwing fake blood on people they don't like, disrupting traffic and making a general nuisance of themselves. Common sense dictates that such people should not be allowed within a given distance of elected officials.

OFFTOPIC:

I'm starting to suspect that you will ignore anything I say to you unless it falls in line with the Republican conservative ideology, or maybe a right-libertarian ideology, no matter how many facts or accounts I can use to back myself up. But let's see if you'll think for yourself a bit:

I never said that Free Speech Zones were the idea of the Bush administration, just that they'd risen to prominence under it. If you've never heard of what happened at the DNC in Chicago '68, then now would be a good time to do a little homework. Clinton definitely played with the "protest zone" concept, although he was beaten down soundly in court for it. Reagan and Bush I didn't so much, and it wasn't because they were such popular guys that nobody wanted to ineffectually wave a placard at them while chanting meaningless slogans. It was because, IMHO, Americans wouldn't stand for it. We were the land of freedom fighting the evil Warsaw pact, and this was America, where we could write and say and think as we chose.

Bush II, however, has taken the Free Speech Zone to a new level. Check out this page (http://www.1115.org/archives/000595.html), which contrasts a picture of a protestor speaking with Clinton in '93 with another picture of protestors in Atlanta, who have been cordoned off away from the President's visit, and then hidden from sight by a line of parked buses. Contrast your story of Albuquerque, where Clinton could see and hear the protestors, with the picture of Atlanta, where the protestors have been hidden completely from presidential view.

Read up (http://www.google.com/search?q=brett+bursey) on the story of Brett Bursey, who was federally prosecuted for holding up a sign reading "No blood for oil" where president Bush could see it in 2002. Read up (http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID35/27823.html) on the man who was escorted by police out of an auditorium and charged with disturbing the peace, for silently turning his back on the president (http://www.turnyourbackonbush.com/index2.html) in protest during a commencement address (apologies for the rhetoric in this last guy's link, he's an ideologue too). This is not just "the left crying louder." This is an organized stifling of political speech by those who are currently wielding political power.

The justifications you give for "Free Speech Zones" are pretty thin. A terrorist would have to be an idiot to cart around a sign that would do nothing but garner MORE attention from the authorities and get him shoved off into some corner away from the action. It's much more likely that anyone who posed a serious security threat would just get a pro-Bush placard and join the rally in progress. Arguing about organizations like Greenpeace and PETA being somehow more of a threat now than in the past is a straw man; these organizations have been around for decades, and have arguably been more organized and relevant in past years than they are now. So, if the "Free Speech Zone" isn't honestly justifiable in the name of security, then why does it happen?

I don't know why Bush does it, but my theory is that it's because ideologues don't like to see views and arguments counter to their own, or anything that might shake their faith in their own rightousness. This would explain why the Democrats, far from pointing out that the free speech zone is an abhorrent, probably unconstitutional practice, are actually embracing it, both at their convention and in political appearances.

I'm glad the ACLU is fighting this one, they're one of the only organizations with the clout to make sure these things get taken down for good. The constitution guarantees the entire country to be a free speech zone. People may disregard views that oppose their own, but while the constitution clearly states that anyone has the right to speak, nowhere does it say that anyone has the right not to hear it. IANAL, but IMHO there's no constitutionally legal basis to protect anyone, no matter their bent, from hearing or seeing dissent in the way the President and Kerry are doing.

ONTOPIC:
I was terrified of firetrucks when I was a little kid. It got so bad I couldn't sleep, so my dad got a measuring tape and took me down to the fire station. He explained what was up to a fireman in the garage, who showed me all the parts of the truck and how it worked. Then Dad measured the truck, and we went home and he measured the door to my room, and showed me how it was completely impossible for a fire truck to ever make it up the stairs in our house into my room.

Never had a problem with them after that.

EDIT: Sorry if my tone in the political half of this post comes off as ideological and self-rightous itself. It's just that I've had this discussion many times, and heard the same things from a lot of people, none of them particularly convincing. This thread has been no exception. I'd just like to stress that I'm open to a well-reasoned argument in favor of Free Speech Zones, but "the hippies might throw fake blood on me" isn't it.

[RetroYoungen]

Hell, I was watching TV shows with guns and "smoking" bubble gum cigarettes when I was that kid's age. But that's just me, I was also afraid of the dark until I was... well...

I still am, actually. :embarrassed:

I don't entirely understand how this kid got so scared from a print ad, however. How did his mom put it into perspective? I feel sorry for the kid for getting scared, but it happens to all of us at some point, and just like many of us I'm sure he'll get over it.

BTW, where was the gun?

[-hellvin-]

BTW, where was the gun?

Perhaps it was a true crime ad? =D.

[DStriemer]

I think the ultimate on-topic point is that, if any child is so fearful of something so bad, why is the parent or parents hiding them from it instead of teaching them about it. And unfortunately, yes this does boil down to pussy-ass parents and pussy-ass kids. How hard is it for a parent to explain , "that the pictures on the bus are ads, these ads portray a videogame where everything exists for fun and entertainment. And even when there is blood, violence and gore in these videogames and their ads, it is all fake and should be laughed at or taken with a grain of salt.

Parents are and should be a "disclaimer" for their children. Especially about something so trivial. Not a censor(well sometimes yes a censor), but a disclaimer. When I was 5, my dad spent a whole horror movie(can't remember which one) explaining EXACTLY how everything was fake and how they made it or how it is done. I personally can't imagine having that much patience even now. I remember in the coming years clenching a chair during scary movies but making it through by explaining to myself in my head how all the blood, and violence and gore was actually all makeup and cool props that people made, and I made it through. And actually learned to have another level of appreciation for a movie at a very young age.

Now that is some pretty cool-ass parenting that led to some pretty damn good real world results.

[evildead2099]

esquire: Ah, irony... Now I get where you were coming from with that observation. Fair enough. But public opinions are just that: opinions.

[Milk]

The ads for the Mario brothers movie gave me nightmares. However, in my case, it saved me from begging my mom to take me to see a crappy movie, so it all ended well.

As for this lady, she sounds like an attention whore liable to sue at the drop of a hat. I'm sure she cares very little for her children and lets them run around with chainsaws and such when the cameras aren't on them. She just wants her 15 minutes. Games are an easy target.

[DigitalSpace]

This reeks of crazy.

[soniko_karuto]

The ads for the Mario brothers movie gave me nightmares. However, in my case, it saved me from begging my mom to take me to see a crappy movie, so it all ended well.

oh well, at least it just wasnt me.

[davidleeroth]

And unfortunately, yes this does boil down to pussy-ass parents and pussy-ass kids.

No, it's about pussy-ass mom. When you're 2 or 4 and you see a scary ad, you go and tell your mom/dad. After that the parents make a "rational" decision what to do about it.

For all I know, the kids might have preferred to hear from their mom what this scary thing is instead of her calling the company seven times to get it removed.

[kainemaxwell]

And unfortunately, yes this does boil down to pussy-ass parents and pussy-ass kids.

No, it's about pussy-ass mom. When you're 2 or 4 and you see a scary ad, you go and tell your mom/dad. After that the parents make a "rational" decision what to do about it.

For all I know, the kids might have preferred to hear from their mom what this scary thing is instead of her calling the company seven times to get it removed.

Apperently the word rational wasn't in this parent's dictionary either.

[DStriemer]

My point in that sentence, even though I should have phrased it differently, is that a pussy-ass parent will acting like this will have pussy-ass kids.

[emumuumuucowgomoo]

Fukcing liberals/canadians!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :angry:


That kind of thing angers me. [/rant]

-james

What the HELL? Fear is a hallmark of conservativism, ignoramous.

Just because you conservatives stereotype liberals as anti gun, (since they know that some of your unwanted rape babies in the trailer trash outskirts of the midwest will sooner or later end up on a miltary base on some semi-civilized city on the coast and shoot at "homo faygotz", and you get pissed because there's nothing to do in the bible belt but shoot at things) doesn't mean that being pissed off at a violent ad is a LIBERAL reaction.

Au contraire - it's the Bible which imparts the strongest "Do Not Kill / Do Onto Others" message, and conservatives have always felt very strongly about this "Bible" book. Strongly to the point of complete potheaded delusional reading into the book - then turning around and blaming the Devil's Reefer on everything. They just enjoy pretending it's the "liberals" at fault whenever one of their own gainers bad press.


Anyway, touchy issue and I'm sorry to drag this thread into politics. Attitudes like this just really offend me - it's as blatantly ignorant as saying the Atari 2600 was 26 bits, or that Action 52 was the work of a failed genius and should be praised, or that Senator Lieberman (who ran on the Democratic ticket but was hardly a "liberal" unless one's knowledge of politics is nil) was an American Hero. Anyway, to make up for it, I'll supply some of the sarcasm that failed others:

This woman is a fucking stupid ignorant bitch and I would laugh very much if her child snuck into her room one night and shot her in the head. It would be irony of the most beautiful Greek nature. And, tying the whole thing back into actual videogames - Athena herself would be pleased.

Fuck, that was irony. Oh well.

[SoulBlazer]

You dug up a year old thread to make a PERSONAL attack?

Smooth move, buddy. :/

[qbertandernie]

aww nuts....

soulblazer beat me to it..

[Lothars]

Nonsense and dumbness never dies.

I can't stand this hysterical scream "Does nobody think about our children?" The world does not consist of 4 year olds alone and shouldn't revolve around 4year olds. Policies became intolerant becasue of exaggerated, hysterical concerns of every minority possible. (age groups, gender, ethnicities, political preferences, environmental concerns) You can't make fun of anything or anyone anymore - - except for catholics and hillbillies. Intolerant educational dicatators took over in the name of tolerance and understanding.

Children can have nightmares about evrything - from Wizrad of Oz, a black or Asian guy they see, or a Disney cartoon. Thunderstorms should be prohibited also, nature just doesn't think about our children.

It's not a coincidence that the journalist put this dumb quote at the end of the article:


"And they wonder why our jails are full and where these kids get these ideas from."


Yep, our children become criminals becasue of an ad like this. Jails are full becasue of pirate movies in the 30s, westerns, Jules Verne, Sherlock holmes novels, and Grimms fairy tales; and girls become pregnant today because of Elvis Presley.

Intolerant hyper-sensitivity is not about children at all. It's about adults with a political agenda who misuse their children to achieve political goals.

I agree, I whole heartedly agree. This is what I wanted to say but was too pissed to do so.


Just because one mother has pussy-ass kids, we have to suffer.

PUSSY KIDS! I hope their school-mates kick their asses. Of course, then it'll get blamed on a video game... and this time IT'LL BE TRUE!

Wrong there Jasoco, kids like this don't go to public school...there usually home schooled. Parent's are too busy trying to protect there "babies" that they will protect them until there 35 years old with no social skills.

Gotta love the digging you did on that chick TheRedEye, amazing stuff, Dammit I'm still pretty speechless at the stupidity of this person. Betting she's a single mom, cause I don't know a man alive that could stand this person.


I agree fully, I do have to say though I feel sorry for her kids,

man haveing a parent like that would be horrible, she is very bizarre and pretty scary to be around it sounds.

[jgenotte]

I herby retract my previous statement. I dont even remember the article, but I can't imagine why I would have written that, I must have been having a bad day.

Sorry,
-james

[Captain Wrong]

But the Action 52 was the work of a failed genius. You just don't understand. :P

[evildead2099]

Sorry if my tone in the political half of this post comes off as ideological and self-rightous itself.

I was fairly impressed with the manner by which you stated your case. You made excellent points and even addressed areas where one could dispute your argument. The only instance where your post really came off overly ideological was your black and white comment which claimed that "we were the land of freedom fighting the evil Warsaw pact."

[evildead2099]

Sorry if my tone in the political half of this post comes off as ideological and self-rightous itself.

I was fairly impressed with the manner by which you stated your case. You made excellent points and even addressed areas where one could dispute your argument. The only instance where your post really came off overly ideological was your black and white comment which claimed that "we were the land of freedom fighting the evil Warsaw pact."

[evildead2099]

But the Action 52 was the work of a failed genius. You just don't understand. :P

LOL

[DigitalSpace]

Just came to mind - I wonder what they'd think of this?

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0002CHJ3M.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[Teo]

like the way he's holding swords. ;)