Pro-life Super Bowl Ad: Question for RF

[footprints]

Ugh, never mind, footprints. Forget my last post. You're obviously way too far gone for me to bother trying to talk to.

Yeah, that is what most unreasonable people say. Albeit, glad to see you finally got it, to make you post this way.

 

[footprints]

OK, I'm going in.

No. The policy was very real when this was brought up. They loosened it in reaction to public outrage. IOW, all our "meaningless" opinions and "worthless" talk righted a wrong.

Yes I understand the opinions of people pertaining to the policy were very premature.

It is good to see what Katherine said was right, wasn't it? Katherine said, it was useless people sitting around whinging and whining if they weren't prepared to do something about it. They do something about it, and things change. Some people really should have more faith in themselves, don't you think?

 

[ChristineES]

I have nothing to add except for this: If they only made ads that all people agreed with, then there would be no ads at all.

 

[footprints]

Looks like you're a few beats behind in the thread. Kathryn's most recent reference to freedom of speech (and the one I was referring to) was in the context of the comments made by people against FOTF's campaign before the ad ran, not CBS's decision to run the ad.

I doubt I am a few beats behind the thread, albeit I can see why from your percpetion you would believe that I am. After taking time to read the whole thread again before talking to you, Katherine never changed her stance from beginning to end.

Katherine even raised freedom of speach to Storm, and told Storm how people could change things.

No, it's not. I asked Kathryn a question about whether it was prudent for other groups to respond to FOTF before the Superbowl. She replied by saying that it was legal for them to do so. It was a non-responsive answer - a red herring.

What is prudent? Meaning prudent to who, prudent to you or prudent to somebody else. A strawman argument which can only be perception based when answered.

Katherine answered in the only intelligent way possible, the law of the US says they have a right to do so. Up to each poster who put their foot in their mouth to decide now whether it was prudent or not. It is not Katherines position to decide whether another person believed they were prudent or not. And I might further add, a bit inflaming of you to ask her to do so and put her in that position.

 

[footprints]

You're very brave, love.

Somebody has to be.

 

[footprints]

Would that include FOTF, who commented on their own ad in misleading ways before the Superbowl?

From what I read, seen and heard, sites referred to in this debate, I didn't find anything misleading. I did find a few things which were ambiguous, but without factual knowledge to back up their meaning, no extra meaning was added or subtracted.

Those who have opposing beliefs would have added their own interpretation to it. One cannot reasonably hold FOTF responsible for imaginations added from a persons mind.

Imagination, FOTF PR campaign... potayto, potahto.

In Australia we just call it potato, and drop all the rubbish from it.

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, that is what most unreasonable people say. Albeit, glad to see you finally got it, to make you post this way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is prudent? Meaning prudent to who, prudent to you or prudent to somebody else. A strawman argument which can only be perception based when answered.

Prudent in the sense that Kathryn apparently felt justified in criticizing the people who spoke in opposition to the campaign before the ad aired.

From what I read, seen and heard, sites referred to in this debate, I didn't find anything misleading. I did find a few things which were ambiguous, but without factual knowledge to back up their meaning, no extra meaning was added or subtracted.

Sure it wasn't.

Answer me this, then: the OP referred to the ad as "pro-life". I've seen the ad (one of them, anyway - anyone have a link to the second one?); there's nothing in it that explicitly refers to the "pro-life" movement. Where did this interpretation come from?

 

[footprints]

Prudent in the sense that Kathryn apparently felt justified in criticizing the people who spoke in opposition to the campaign before the ad aired.

As I cannot speak for Kathryn, I could only answer this from my perception of the alleged events. If and a big If mind you, Kathryn did criticise other posters (justified or not) in the end what Kathryn was saying was absolutely correct. And, it was those who criticised what Kathryn was saying who ended up being less than correct in this matter.

Would I say it was prudent of Kathryn?

1) For the sake of honesty and truth, I would have to say yes.

2) For the sake of being attacked for being right, and the posters who cannot accept that Kathryn was right and therefore cannot let the subject drop until they twist it around far enough to gain some sort of personal mental victory from it. As in your own personal attacks on Kathryn (see this post I am replying to), that I would say would have to be up to Kathryn to decide. Being right, doesn't always win you popularity contests and can also make you the target of ridicule.

Answer me this, then: the OP referred to the ad as "pro-life". I've seen the ad (one of them, anyway - anyone have a link to the second one?); there's nothing in it that explicitly refers to the "pro-life" movement. Where did this interpretation come from?

You are asking me questions I have no answer for, unless I take a wild guess which makes the question unreasonable. What I can say without guessing an answer, is it came from association patterns stored in peoples heads, whether they were for or against the ad. Depending on whether they related to this ad being positive or negative in context.

From a marketing perspective, an add could show peanuts being poured into a bag, and that is all that the ad showed, they could relate and associate this ad, to buying a new car. It is not what the ad shows which counts, it is how the ad is related and associated to. I will not go into detail of the hows and whys of advertising, except to say, those against the ad, were their own worst enemy.

 

[footprints]

LOL, you are a funny person. Surely you know it is only people of your own belief patterns who see life as you do.:angel2:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I cannot speak for Kathryn, I could only answer this from my perception of the alleged events. If and a big If mind you, Kathryn did criticise other posters (justified or not) in the end what Kathryn was saying was absolutely correct. And, it was those who criticised what Kathryn was saying who ended up being less than correct in this matter.

Would I say it was prudent of Kathryn?

No... I wasn't asking whether it was prudent of Kathryn to criticize, I was asking whether it was prudent of the people Kathryn was criticizing to speak out about FOTF's campaign.

You are asking me questions I have no answer for, unless I take a wild guess which makes the question unreasonable. What I can say without guessing an answer, is it came from association patterns stored in peoples heads, whether they were for or against the ad. Depending on whether they related to this ad being positive or negative in context.

Or, just maybe, it came from things like Tim Tebow remarking that the ad would be controversial:

Even before the ad became one of Google's 10 most-searched topics Tuesday, Tebow was publicly defending it: "Some people won't agree with it," he said Monday. "But I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe."

Or him saying that the ad would be about his mother's decision not to abort:

In a new ad set to air on CBS during the Super Bowl, Tebow talks about his mother's choice to give birth to him despite doctor's concerns for her health.

"I think it's a great opportunity to show something - a very happy and a special story," Tebow said today.

From a marketing perspective, an add could show peanuts being poured into a bag, and that is all that the ad showed, they could relate and associate this ad, to buying a new car. It is not what the ad shows which counts, it is how the ad is related and associated to.

Yes... and in this case, the ad is related to and associated with a larger anti-abortion PR campaign by Focus on the Family.

I will not go into detail of the hows and whys of advertising, except to say, those against the ad, were their own worst enemy.

In the sense that they let themselves be duped by FOTF, I suppose I agree: FOTF played them for its own benefit.

 

[footprints]

No... I wasn't asking whether it was prudent of Kathryn to criticize, I was asking whether it was prudent of the people Kathryn was criticizing to speak out about FOTF's campaign.

This point has already been discussed. Kathryn gave the only intelligent answer open to her, which is consitent with her whole point in this debate.

Or, just maybe, it came from things like Tim Tebow remarking that the ad would be controversial:

People will read anything into the truth. Tebow just stated an obvious fact. I see nothing wrong in a correct statement, why do you?

Or him saying that the ad would be about his mother's decision not to abort:

People will read anything into the truth. Tebow just stated his own opinion. I feel confident in saying Tebow would have a bias in his opinion and a love and respect for his mother. I see nothing wrong in this, why do you?

Yes... and in this case, the ad is related to and associated with a larger anti-abortion PR campaign by Focus on the Family.

It is one association which can be made, either that or it is a call for pro-choice the other way round. Tebow's mother had a choice to have a surgery which in all probability would have ended in aborting the pregnacy, or to gain a second opinion and keep the child.

The whole original intent behind the Pro-Choice (Pro-Abortion) movement, was to ultimately abolish abortion in all but reasoned cases. It was never meant to be, and remain as a life long choice.

In the sense that they let themselves be duped by FOTF, I suppose I agree: FOTF played them for its own benefit.

Nobody is ever duped by another persons intelligence, they are only ever duped by their own intelligence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

People will read anything into the truth. Tebow just stated an obvious fact. I see nothing wrong in a correct statement, why do you?

You're missing the point. If people intimitely involved in the production of the ad say that the ad's going to be controversial and that it's going to address the issue of abortion, then I think it's unreasonable to fault people for taking this at face value.

 

[footprints]

You're missing the point. If people intimitely involved in the production of the ad say that the ad's going to be controversial and that it's going to address the issue of abortion, then I think it's unreasonable to fault people for taking this at face value.

I am not missing the point, I am just not adding it like you are.

What can I say, Tebow was right, it did address the issue of abortion from his mothers perspective. It wasn't as if he were trying to hide it, lie about it, or there was any deception there. He was further right that the ad would be controversial. In fact in all cases, what Tebow said was absolutely correct.

What you are trying to imply is, people were duped by honesty, openness, sincerity and truth. That in itself should tell you something pertaining to the perceptions of those you consider duped.

 

[Magic Man]

footprints, something came for you:

 

[footprints]

footprints, something came for you:

LOL :angel2: I bet you had something to do with loading this ship. LOL

 

[Kathryn]

Did you say ship? Oh darn, I thought you said something else!

 

[footprints]

Did you say ship? Oh darn, I thought you said something else!

LOL, no it was definately ship I wrote, albeit you could have been reading my mind.