PDA

View Full Version : Advertising and self-censorship



Southpaw Jim
01-12-2008, 04:05 PM
I'd be interested to know peoples' thoughts on this (http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/the-ad-they-wouldnt-run/)?

:hmm:

Igor_Goldenberg
01-12-2008, 04:09 PM
I'd be interested to know peoples' thoughts on this (http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/the-ad-they-wouldnt-run/)?

:hmm:

I think in psychology it's called "inferiority complex". I refer to desire to run such an ad.

CameronD
01-12-2008, 04:13 PM
I'd be interested to know peoples' thoughts on this (http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/the-ad-they-wouldnt-run/)?

:hmm:

Religion advertising can change peoples purchasing habits immensely. The last thing a bus company wants is a boycott by some of its christian customers.

I would say that if their customers will be unhappy about the advertisement, then dont run it as its not worth the income. If the customers dont care, then run it.

The bus company made the right choice, regardless of wheather morally its correct socially

Desmond
01-12-2008, 04:37 PM
Speaking of censorship...
There is a large billboard by the side of the road feeding to the Brisbane airport. For the last several months, it has read, "Want longer lasting sex..." and a number to call, something about erectile dysfunction no doubt. A couple of weeks ago I notice that the "sex" part had been overwritten with a "censored" sign.

Is the word "sex" really so offensive?

TheJoker
01-12-2008, 08:16 PM
Speaking of censorship...
There is a large billboard by the side of the road feeding to the Brisbane airport. For the last several months, it has read, "Want longer lasting sex..." and a number to call, something about erectile dysfunction no doubt. A couple of weeks ago I notice that the "sex" part had been overwritten with a "censored" sign.

Is the word "sex" really so offensive?

It is probably just an advertising ploy to attract your attention again at very little extra cost. Quite clever in that respect.

Southpaw Jim
01-12-2008, 08:30 PM
Nah, the "sex" one was changed in response to complaints to ACMA I think. I have a feeling that the company behind that billboard has been in trouble with ACMA before with the ad featuring Ian "Turps" Turpie claiming he'd suffered from erectile dysfunction when, in fact, he never had.

As far as boycotts are concerned, I'm not sure they'd have much effect down here, our service is effectively a government monopoly. Plus, a large proportion of the customer base doesn't have the option of boycotting, they need to use the service (schoolkids, OAPs). I really rather suspect it's not about boycotts, and more about being at the centre of a press controversy.

I think it's a little sad though.

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2008, 11:23 PM
I think in psychology it's called "inferiority complex". I refer to desire to run such an ad.

Here you go again with your unsubstantiated unqualified psychological hackery.

How about you show that that is what psychology considers it to be by citing some formal and widely accepted research in the field that proves that if atheists want to advertise atheism then they are suffering an inferiority complex?

Until you do so your comments just look clueless and cheap and are bad debating.

My view on this: Metro Tasmania is not a private bus company, it is a state-owned. Therefore it should not be accepting advertising for or against any religious view, and in isolation the rejection of the atheism ad was correct. However in light of this decision I will be keeping a careful eye out for any Christian moralist type advertising on buses. I cannot remember for sure whether I have ever seen the Human Life Protection Society prayer for mothers and babies guff on buses, but if I see it after this, Metro will be very very very very sorry. :D

CameronD
01-12-2008, 11:30 PM
Just walk into a public school.

Good chance there will be a government paid religious advisor for the students (cant remember what their called) who gives classes to students as a school subject on christianity.

I'm probably wrong, but I think there is no requirement for separation of church and state in Australia.



Here you go again with your unsubstantiated unqualified psychological hackery.

How about you show that that is what psychology considers it to be by citing some formal and widely accepted research in the field that proves that if atheists want to advertise atheism then they are suffering an inferiority complex?

Until you do so your comments just look clueless and cheap and are bad debating.

My view on this: Metro Tasmania is not a private bus company, it is a state-owned. Therefore it should not be accepting advertising for or against any religious view, and in isolation the rejection of the atheism ad was correct. However in light of this decision I will be keeping a careful eye out for any Christian moralist type advertising on buses. I cannot remember for sure whether I have ever seen the Human Life Protection Society prayer for mothers and babies guff on buses, but if I see it after this, Metro will be very very very very sorry. :D

MichaelBaron
01-12-2008, 11:32 PM
Religion and marketing often go hand in hand :). In fact one of the major contemporary e-marketing theorists (wilson) has ph.d in theology.

WhiteElephant
01-12-2008, 11:35 PM
Both are about influencing the masses.

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2008, 11:40 PM
Just walk into a public school.

Good chance there will be a government paid religious advisor for the students (cant remember what their called) who gives classes to students as a school subject on christianity.

This happened in state schools when I was in Queensland in the 1970s and also in Tasmania in the early 1980s but at least in the latter case it was possible to opt out of it (which I did.)


I'm probably wrong, but I think there is no requirement for separation of church and state in Australia.

There is a provision in the Constitution against a state religion but that seems not sufficient to ensure separation. Unfortunately.

Miranda
02-12-2008, 10:27 AM
Both are about influencing the masses.
Both are about brainwashing the masses.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-12-2008, 10:39 AM
Here you go again with your unsubstantiated unqualified psychological hackery.

How about you show that that is what psychology considers it to be by citing some formal and widely accepted research in the field that proves that if atheists want to advertise atheism then they are suffering an inferiority complex?


Why do they want to run this particular ad?

Igor_Goldenberg
02-12-2008, 10:42 AM
Just walk into a public school.

Good chance there will be a government paid religious advisor for the students (cant remember what their called) who gives classes to students as a school subject on christianity.

AFAIK, parent can opt-out from any religious lessons offered in school.
Different school offer different religious lessons (depending on availability, demography, random chance, etc.).


I'm probably wrong, but I think there is no requirement for separation of church and state in Australia.

Can't comment on that, but would like to ask a question:
Would do you see as separation of state and religion?

Desmond
02-12-2008, 10:50 AM
Why do they want to run this particular ad?Why does anyone run an ad? To achieve product and/or brand visibility and increase sales and market share. Does wanting to do this mean they have an inferiority complex? Do door-knocking JWs also have an inferiority complex because they are trying to recruit? What about Jono posting links to his website? Is this too an inferiority complex??

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2008, 10:57 AM
Just walk into a public school.
People can't opt out of paying taxes to these even if they send their kids to private schools, yet teachers unions use them for leftist indoctrination. One wrote in the English teachers journal after Howard's last election victory that the teachers can't have done their job properly.

I'm probably wrong, but I think there is no requirement for separation of church and state in Australia.
There isn't in America either. In the case ACLU vs Mercer County (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0477p-06.pdf) (KY, 2005), circuit judge Richard Suhrheinrich demolished this myth (with fellow circuit judge Alice Batchelder concurring), denouncing it as one of the ‘fundamental flaws’ in the ACLU case:


[T]he ACLU makes repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct grows tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state … our Nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion. … (‘There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.’) After all, ‘[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.’ … Thus, state recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally permissible. [Cited court cases omitted] …

In fact, the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is taken from a letter from Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 (http://www.churchstatelaw.com/historicalmaterials/8_8_5.asp), 15 years after the Constitution was ratified. And Jefferson’s meaning in context was diametrically opposed to the way the ACLU take it. That is, the Baptists of the day used a metaphor of the church as a ‘garden’, compared to the ‘wilderness’ of the outside world, with a ‘wall’ or hedge separating them. This came from Baptist Roger Williams (1603–1684), founder of Rhode Island, in a sermon called The Garden in the Wilderness (1644), where he said :


When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will e’er please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world.

Here the meaning is very clear: if this protective hedge or wall were broken down, then the wilderness would encroach into the garden and destroy it. So the whole point of the wall was to prevent the government from encroaching on the church, not to expunge the church from society.

I do support separation of school and state though.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2008, 10:59 AM
Both are about brainwashing the masses.
You mean, what this atheist ad and the school curriculum are about?

Igor_Goldenberg
02-12-2008, 12:33 PM
Why does anyone run an ad? To achieve product and/or brand visibility and increase sales and market share. Does wanting to do this mean they have an inferiority complex? Do door-knocking JWs also have an inferiority complex because they are trying to recruit? What about Jono posting links to his website? Is this too an inferiority complex??
Churches want to recruit naive people so they can brainwash and indoctrinate them:lol: But they usually have more targeted campaigns.
Does atheist foundation look to recruit? For which purpose?

Miranda
02-12-2008, 12:37 PM
Churches want to recruit naive people so they can brainwash and indoctrinate them:lol: But they usually have more targeted campaigns.
Does atheist foundation look to recruit? For which purpose?
The athiest foundation looks to tell people the truth :)

Igor_Goldenberg
02-12-2008, 12:43 PM
The athiest foundation looks to tell people the truth :)
I understand, they are altruists that are happy to pay a lot of money to tell people THE TRUTH.

Desmond
02-12-2008, 01:11 PM
Churches want to recruit naive people so they can brainwash and indoctrinate them:lol: But they usually have more targeted campaigns.
Does atheist foundation look to recruit? For which purpose?For someone who knew enough of their motives to call it an inferiority complex, you seem to be asking more questions than you are answering. Why don't you tell us all why you think they are running the ads.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-12-2008, 01:20 PM
For someone who knew enough of their motives to call it an inferiority complex, you seem to be asking more questions than you are answering. Why don't you tell us all why you think they are running the ads.
They look to me like a little boy in a company of older boys jumping up and screaming "I am here, I am here" all the time in a hope they will notice him.
My feeling is that nobody gives a damn about them and they resort to a quite stupid ad to get noticed.

Desmond
02-12-2008, 01:30 PM
They look to me like a little boy in a company of older boys jumping up and screaming "I am here, I am here" all the time in a hope they will notice him.Read: To achieve product and/or brand visibility and increase sales and market share.

My feeling is that nobody gives a damn about themhence the need to advertise
and they resort to a quite stupid ad to get noticed.What is stupid about it?

Igor_Goldenberg
02-12-2008, 02:15 PM
What is stupid about it?
First thought on seeing an ad: "No credible evidence" must apply to atheism, but that's not their intent.
Some times an ad causes a shrug: "So what?", or "the point is?"
This one falls in the same category.

However, if they want to run it and pay for it, it's their money. I don't really care.

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2008, 10:29 PM
Why do they want to run this particular ad?

Does it matter? Is it in any way other than obvious?

You are the one asserting a particular reason for then wanting to run an ad, that is nothing but an unqualified slur on your part at this stage.

Do you think advertisements for Christianity are stupid?

(I mean generally, not the Christian Television Association specifically, by the way. I am yet to meet any self-professed Christian who actually liked CTA.)

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2008, 10:46 PM
(I mean generally, not the Christian Television Association specifically, by the way. I am yet to meet any self-professed Christian who actually liked CTA.)I don't, and I guess I'm a self-professed Christian.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2008, 10:48 PM
The athiest foundation looks to tell people the truth :)
That would be a first from that lot. :P

I'm an afairiest and anIPUist, but I don't go screaming about it or pay to advertize it. Igor has it right.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2008, 10:52 PM
What about Jono posting links to his website? Is this too an inferiority complex??
There's no pleasing some people. Miranda whinges when I post from someone else's article since I should be confined to total originality, but when I post from one of my own articles, i.e. doing what Miranda supposedly supports since they are my own thoughts, someone else whinges :P

Igor_Goldenberg
03-12-2008, 09:21 AM
Does it matter? Is it in any way other than obvious?

If it's obvious, why don't you tell us?



You are the one asserting a particular reason for then wanting to run an ad, that is nothing but an unqualified slur on your part at this stage.
I am not asserting anything. I am just stating my opinion that atheists foundation looks to me like a pathetic bunch of losers.


Do you think advertisements for Christianity are stupid?
No idea, I hardly notice them. I suspect those ads are targeted at Christians, why don't you ask them?

On the other hand I doubt the ad discussed is targeted at atheists.

Desmond
03-12-2008, 09:28 AM
On the other hand I doubt the ad discussed is targeted at atheists.I'm just guessing, but I'd say it probably is targeted at athiests. Probably targeted at athiests who are not members of their organisation, with a view to get them to sign up.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-12-2008, 09:38 AM
I'm just guessing, but I'd say it probably is targeted at athiests. Probably targeted at athiests who are not members of their organisation, with a view to get them to sign up.
You could be right. In this case their ad is waste of money (therefore, it's stupid). good luck to them.

However, I like Jono's explanation:

I'm an afairiest and anIPUist, but I don't go screaming about it or pay to advertize it.

Desmond
03-12-2008, 09:47 AM
You could be right. In this case their ad is waste of money (therefore, it's stupid). good luck to them.Do you think that any organisation that advertises with the intent of increasing their membership is stupid?

For example I know of two chess clubs in Qld that advertise in local papers. Is this stupid?

Igor_Goldenberg
03-12-2008, 10:52 AM
Do you think that any organisation that advertises with the intent of increasing their membership is stupid?


I doubt this ad would succeed in increasing their membership.
But as said, if they want to waste money - good luck.

TheJoker
03-12-2008, 11:40 AM
I doubt this ad would succeed in increasing their membership.

Based on what credible evidence:lol:

Unless you have some background in advertising your personal opinion doesn't really count for much does it?

TheJoker
03-12-2008, 11:49 AM
I'm an afairiest and anIPUist, but I don't go screaming about it or pay to advertize it. Igor has it right.

Because AFAIK its not realted to your business.

An atheist foundation (business) should advertise atheism that is just good business sense.

Everyday on my way to work I pass by a bill board that advertises christianity funded by a nearby church.

Critising a business for wanting to advertise their product is stupid.

Kevin Bonham
05-12-2008, 09:25 PM
I cannot remember for sure whether I have ever seen the Human Life Protection Society prayer for mothers and babies guff on buses, but if I see it after this, Metro will be very very very very sorry. :D

Others I have discussed this issue with confirm my vague memory that I have seen such stuff in the past. A local lawyer, James Crotty, has published an opinion (on the thread Southpaw Jim linked to) that Metro (through the action of the company that manages their advertising, and not their own fault at this stage) are in probable breach of Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Act if the facts of the case are as described in the story linked to above. I will be writing to Metro shortly to find out what is really going on.


If it's obvious, why don't you tell us?

Probably because I would have hoped you could work it out for yourself without me needing to tell you or you resorting to silly psychological putdowns that have no demonstrated basis in reality.

Obvious reasons why some atheists wish to "spread the word" include:

* They desire that the basis for atheism is understood so that atheists and atheism will be treated fairly and taken seriously.

* They desire that the number of atheists increase, in part so that the rights of atheists will be taken more seriously by lawmakers.

* They altruistically desire to free others of religious views which they believe may be doing those others harm, or causing those others to do harm.

* They wish to raise awareness among other atheists of their online presence with a view to more effectively furthering the above goals.


I am not asserting anything.

You certainly were asserting that the ads were probably based around feelings of inferiority. Given that you now claim to not be asserting anything I shall assume you have accepted my debunking of your case as baseless.


I am just stating my opinion that atheists foundation looks to me like a pathetic bunch of losers.

I am stating as fact that the way you have expressed that opinion so far on this thread places you in no position to comment on that. :hand:


I suspect those ads are targeted at Christians, why don't you ask them?

On the other hand I doubt the ad discussed is targeted at atheists.

I have seen plenty of "Christian" advertising material that is clearly targeted at unbelievers and the uncommitted (sometimes in a mocking fashion, sometimes inviting). Other Christian advertising may be targeted at those who are "Christian" but need to be kept in the fold, or may be aiming for conversion between different denominations or approaches.

By the way if the AFA really want their advertising to succeed they need to tart up their website which is poorly presented and in places badly proofread, not to mention the forum being down.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-12-2008, 04:43 PM
Obvious reasons why some atheists wish to "spread the word" include:

* They desire that the basis for atheism is understood so that atheists and atheism will be treated fairly and taken seriously.

I doubt this ad would succeed at the task.


* They desire that the number of atheists increase, in part so that the rights of atheists will be taken more seriously by lawmakers.

You might want to move it to jokes thread.


You certainly were asserting that the ads were probably based around feelings of inferiority. Given that you now claim to not be asserting anything I shall assume you have accepted my debunking of your case as baseless.

I haven't changed my opinion that their are suffering from inferiority complex.
I might be wrong, though. May be they are enjoying it, not suffering.
You can come out with heaps of plausible reasons.
But there is always a different between cause and excuse.

As Jono said, there are many thinks I personally do not believe in, but I don't scream about it on every corner.



I am stating as fact that the way you have expressed that opinion so far on this thread places you in no position to comment on that. :hand:

Hmmm. I thought my opinion was expressed in a very clear and easily understood terms.
And what you stated in no more then a mere opinion, not a fact.

Kevin Bonham
06-12-2008, 07:56 PM
I doubt this ad would succeed at the task.

I doubt that you're an expert in the success or otherwise of religious or anti-religious advertising (nor for that matter am I). But whether or not it succeeds is not the point. The point is that there are obvious motivations for it that do not require recourse to hack psychology.


You might want to move it to jokes thread.

Well Jono is always telling us how seriously the treatment of religious minorities is being taken and to what extent so-called political correctness supposedly based on that is supposedly running amok. So what are you suggesting is the "joke" here?


I haven't changed my opinion that their are suffering from inferiority complex.

Then you were asserting something after all, and what you were asserting was a sloppy psychological attack for which you have not thus far presented either any evidence, or any evidence that you even know what you are talking about.


I might be wrong, though. May be they are enjoying it, not suffering.
You can come out with heaps of plausible reasons.
But there is always a different between cause and excuse.

Indeed but your own response seems ironically more like your excuse to dismiss the actions of a group you are biased against than a constructive contribution to debate.


As Jono said, there are many thinks I personally do not believe in, but I don't scream about it on every corner.

So? Some people are active about issues, some are not. It is often a matter of personality, inclination and depth of feeling about a matter. If these people advertising their atheism to the world means they have an inferiority complex, then Jesus must have had one too.


Hmmm. I thought my opinion was expressed in a very clear and easily understood terms.

Yes but those terms were the terms of hack psychology, debating without evidence and pointless uninformative slurring.

Therefore, as Graham Parker would put it, what I wrote is not just my opinion, it is a description of reality. :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
07-12-2008, 08:31 PM
Well Jono is always telling us how seriously the treatment of religious minorities is being taken and to what extent so-called political correctness supposedly based on that is supposedly running amok. So what are you suggesting is the "joke" here?
Supposed lack of right for atheists


So? Some people are active about issues, some are not. It is often a matter of personality, inclination and depth of feeling about a matter. If these people advertising their atheism to the world means they have an inferiority complex, then Jesus must have had one too.

There is a difference between being active about what you believe and about what you don't believe.

Aaron Guthrie
07-12-2008, 09:47 PM
I had a bit of a look at the Atheist Foundation's website (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/index.htm). Some extracts and some comments follow.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc began in South Australia in 1970 when the members of the Rationalist Association of SA decided that a name change would proclaim their basic philosophy, which began in Greece 2500 years ago.

Q. If you do not believe in "God", then from where does your morality come?

A. All rules of conduct are human made. They are the result of requirements necessary for cooperation in maintaining social order. The higher animals, including humans have evolved empathetic and compassionate traits beneficial to survival. Our intellect continually refines these, as circumstance requires.
Ask yourself these two questions:
(1) What religious rule do you know about that has not or is not capable of having originated from humans?
(2) If you found sufficient evidence, conclusively proving that a god did not exist, would you develop into an immoral person?If this is answering the "why ought we act a certain way" question, then it is doing so by taking a position on what makes things right. Actually there are at least two ways to interpret it, as a consequentialist position, or as a what is natural is what is right position. But they need not commit to any position, except to say that whatever makes something right is not the result of a supernatural being.
Q. Do you believe in a supreme being?

A. It is not a matter whether an Atheist 'believes' in a supreme being or not, it is more to the point that atheists accept there is no evidence for such an entity. That the thought of the existence of a supreme being can enter the minds of humans is absolutely no proof that a supreme being exists anymore than does the thought of fairies make them real.So can one be an Atheist that believes in God? Let us look at their definition.
Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.Looks like it! One might say that it would be irrational to believe in God and believe there is no evidence for God. But if so then there is a point to asking whether Atheist's (or the ideal rational Athiest, say) believe in God.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia recognises scientific method as the only rational means toward understanding reality.Again a commitment to philosophical position that doesn't follow from the Atheist position, namely scientism.
To encourage and to provide a means of expression for informed free-thought on philosophical and social issues.

To safeguard the rights of all non-religious people.

To serve as a focal point for the fellowship of non-religious people.

To offer reliable information in place of superstition and to offer the methodology of reason in place of faith so as to enable people to take responsibility for the full development of their potential as human beings.

To promote atheism.
I/We agree with the Aims and Philosophy of the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, and hereby apply for MembershipWhile I think they have dropped the ball somewhat by including at least one controversial statement as part of their philosophy, and then making one commit to it to join the club, I at least grant that they have made accommodations for those that prefer to use the royal "we", rather than "I".

Kevin Bonham
07-12-2008, 10:39 PM
Supposed lack of right for atheists

The irony here is that a situation in which a state-owned company rejects advertising for an atheist group having carried advertising for religious groups makes a point about persisting religious inequality rather more than the ad would have done if allowed.


There is a difference between being active about what you believe and about what you don't believe.

So if someone doesn't believe a particular law should be passed, are they being active about what they believe or what they don't believe?

I think the distinction you give here is a rather artificial one (eg atheism for different atheists can be either "I believe there isn't a God" or "I don't believe there is a God"), and even if the distinction is genuine, then in terms of your psychological claims, so what?

Kevin Bonham
07-12-2008, 10:56 PM
If this is answering the "why ought we act a certain way" question, then it is doing so by taking a position on what makes things right. Actually there are at least two ways to interpret it, as a consequentialist position, or as a what is natural is what is right position. But they need not commit to any position, except to say that whatever makes something right is not the result of a supernatural being.

I took them to be answering the question as if it is an empirical one meaning "If there is no God, why do humans (and atheists in particular) hold moral beliefs?" rather than something meaning "If there is no God, why should humans behave morally?"


So can one be an Atheist that believes in God? Let us look at their definition.Looks like it!

Indeed, and while on the surface that might seem silly (why would someone think there was no remotely credible evidence for a statement and yet still believe it to be true?) it's not so absurd if that person is an agnostic in the strict sense of the term (holding that it is impossible to know one way or the other.) A theistic agnostic (oh yes they do exist!) would fit the AFA's definition of an atheist perfectly.

Aaron Guthrie
07-12-2008, 11:17 PM
I took them to be answering the question as if it is an empirical one meaning "If there is no God, why do humans (and atheists in particular) hold moral beliefs?" rather than something meaning "If there is no God, why should humans behave morally?"Yeah I wasn't sure on this. The issue being that the answer looks empirical (though it can be interpreted otherwise), but I would think that the question, since this is an FAQ, is not. This is why I say if it is an answer to the ought question, it is too committal.
Indeed, and while on the surface that might seem silly (why would someone think there was no remotely credible evidence for a statement and yet still believe it to be true?) it's not so absurd if that person is an agnostic in the strict sense of the term (holding that it is impossible to know one way or the other.) A theistic agnostic (oh yes they do exist!) would fit the AFA's definition of an atheist perfectly.Yes, and I know at least one person that fits that category. Unfortunately she cannot infiltrate the club.
As there is no scientific evidence for supernatural phenomena, atheists reject belief in `God’, gods and other supernatural beings.

Kevin Bonham
07-12-2008, 11:54 PM
Yeah I wasn't sure on this. The issue being that the answer looks empirical (though it can be interpreted otherwise), but I would think that the question, since this is an FAQ, is not.

Indeed; in my experience the "ought" question is asked rather more often than the empirical question but perhaps that's just a reflection on the kind of religious folk I have argued with in the past. It is not clear to me whether the FAQ compiler does not realise it is often asked as an "ought" question, or realises this, thinks the "ought" question is silly, and therefore chooses a wording that mainly diverts to the empirical question.

The question "(2) If you found sufficient evidence, conclusively proving that a god did not exist, would you develop into an immoral person?" is at least compatible with the idea that the "ought" question is moot because human decisions are determined by their genes, upbringing and environment and not by their views on meta-ethics.

This was also interesting:


Q. Do Atheists hate religious people?

A. The hurt that religions do results from the adherent's blind acceptance of fanciful stories and traditions. Most Atheists are vehemently opposed to all religions. It is an exercise in futility as well as being a notion steeped in ignorance, to blame the victim of any hoax.

Atheism promotes that young people should not be indoctrinated into a particular monotheistic system. Children have no intellectual defence against such authorative adult methods. Instead, education about all religions, the harm they create and their unevidenced status, is the only ethically correct course of action. Monotheistic induction is a form of mental child abuse.
Atheists would support people freely choosing religion as the result of broad information, as this would render it a minority affair. The proviso being, that its practise should only happen between consenting adults and not used to influence politics. Its present form is a consequence of a narrow based indoctrination procedure and/or taken for granted cultural correctness.

The claim "Most Atheists are vehemently opposed to all religions" is in my experience empirically false. Some atheists have a soft spot for eastern religions (without agreeing with them) and there are also plenty who see mainstream Christianity as a force for social good but just disagree with the God bit. Others still may consider religion to be folly but to not be worth wasting "vehement opposition" on.

I am starting to wonder if it was not so much the fact that the ads were for atheism, as some of the comments on the website itself (the website was to be mentioned on the ad) that caused the ad to be rejected. (Not that I would agree with its rejection on such grounds.)

Kevin Bonham
08-12-2008, 12:02 AM
Here are some comments by AFA President David Nicholls that are of interest:


And here is the latest information from Metro Buses in Tasmania: “Metro has considered the advertising material and feel that there is reasonable potential for the message to stimulate debate from interest groups within the community, and possibly draw negative criticism that identifies metro as the advertising medium provider.

On the basis of managing potential risk to the metro advertising business. that an agreement is not entered into.”

http://www.meetup.com/Melbourne-Atheists/boards/thread/5711445

and


Metro buses in Tasmania have refused any sign from us no matter how mild.

Aaron Guthrie
08-12-2008, 12:22 AM
Indeed; in my experience the "ought" question is asked rather more often than the empirical question but perhaps that's just a reflection on the kind of religious folk I have argued with in the past. It is not clear to me whether the FAQ compiler does not realise it is often asked as an "ought" question, or realises this, thinks the "ought" question is silly, and therefore chooses a wording that mainly diverts to the empirical question.This is possible. Taking into account the sceintism sentiment, the compiler may think the only way to answer the question is empirically. My complaint against the extra commitments stands in this case, of course.

The claim "Most Atheists are vehemently opposed to all religions" is in my experience empirically false. Some atheists have a soft spot for eastern religions (without agreeing with them) and there are also plenty who see mainstream Christianity as a force for social good but just disagree with the God bit. Others still may consider religion to be folly but to not be worth wasting "vehement opposition" on.There are a few comments made about this group of "most Atheists" in that faq. My own experience is similar to yours with respect to most of the atheists I have met. It would have been nice if they could have backed up the "most" claims. Or perhaps just qualified it by saying that the Atheist Foundation's position is such and such.

Aaron Guthrie
08-12-2008, 12:40 AM
Here are some comments by AFA President David Nicholls that are of interest:There is a more recent, but very similar, media release on their website. http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/mediarelease.htm

From the page you linked to.

I have sent an alternative message to be displayed for evaluation. ‘Atheism – Celebrate reason!’ I have run this one past a number of people and the response has been good. It is inoffensive, positive, short and therefore remember-able. I think we have to stop procrastinating and get behind this slogan.Seems to me this could stimulate the same sort of debate from interest groups that the the bus company doesn't want. Does the slogan assert that belief in god is irrational? Also the use of positive language here is just positive about atheism. I don't know how that is supposed to prevent criticism from the relevant interest groups. It actually seems implicitly negative against non-atheist positions. Maybe something like "Atheism- A reasonable position" is closer to the mark.

Kevin Bonham
08-12-2008, 09:10 AM
In the mail to Metro Tasmania today:


Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd
PO Box 61
Moonah Tas 7009

Dear Metro Tasmania,

ATHEIST FOUNDATION OF AUSTRALIA ADVERTISING REJECTION

I write concerning claims by the Atheist Foundation of Australia that its attempts to purchase advertising space on Metro buses have been unsuccessful. My understanding is that Metro has carried advertising for certain Christian prayer events in the past.

According to an online post by AFA President David Nicholls, “Metro has considered the advertising material and feel that there is reasonable potential for the message to stimulate debate from interest groups within the community, and possibly draw negative criticism that identifies metro as the advertising medium provider.”

Firstly, I wish to establish whether proposed AFA advertising was indeed rejected for these reasons, and if so whether the advertising was rejected because it promoted atheism or specifically because it promoted the AFA (and if the latter, why).

Secondly, in the event that the advertising was indeed rejected for this reason, I wish to establish whether Metro have also taken a decision to rule out accepting advertising from religious groups or concerning religious activities in the future.

Thirdly, in the event that the AFA account of the rejection is broadly accurate, and that no decision that precludes further religious advertising has been taken, I wish to disagree with this state of affairs, on the following grounds:

· Metro is a state-supported company. It should therefore not be picking favourites in religious debates. There is (in my view) a strong argument that a state company should not advertise any religious or counter-religious material whatsoever, but if it is going to do so it is critical that it accept advertising from both sides rather than just from Christians.
· Metro has in the past accepted religious advertising even though any religious message will always have some potential to stimulate debate and draw negative criticism (something that will doubtless be exacerbated by this rejection).
· The rejection is self-defeating in that it is already drawing negative criticism that identifies Metro as the provider refusing to accept advertising, and debate from interest groups within the community.
· The rejection exposes Metro to the risk of costly legal action, whether successful or not I am unable to say (for instance lawyer James Crotty has already published a view, albeit based on incomplete information that it may breach the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act).
· While the AFA website contains some forthright and contentious statements they are no more so than statements made by other religious groups on a regular basis, or indeed than the basic credos of such groups.

My own view of Metro as a progressive and modern transport provider will be affected negatively unless Metro treats religious and non-religious bodies equally when they wish to sponsor advertising space to advertise their events and viewpoints.

I am not a member of the AFA or any other formalised atheist association, and nor do I agree with all the contents of the AFA website. Thank you very much for your time in reading this letter and for any response you are able to provide.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-12-2008, 10:01 AM
So if someone doesn't believe a particular law should be passed, are they being active about what they believe or what they don't believe?

Law is binding and compulsory for everyone.



I think the distinction you give here is a rather artificial one (eg atheism for different atheists can be either "I believe there isn't a God" or "I don't believe there is a God"), and even if the distinction is genuine, then in terms of your psychological claims, so what?
People who simply don't care are "non-believer". They are not proselyting.
Atheists want to convince others. In a nutshell, atheism (like communism) is another religion.
It can be argued that non-believers and atheists are the same, but I don't agree with that view.

Kevin Bonham
08-12-2008, 09:12 PM
Law is binding and compulsory for everyone.

That doesn't answer my question at all.


People who simply don't care are "non-believer". They are not proselyting.

This doesn't follow at all. Quite a few active self-described atheists would consider "I don't believe there is a God" to more accurately describe their beliefs than "I believe there is no God" (since the former is a statement of simply not yet being convinced by the evidence, while the latter is a statement that one leans towards the contrary). Indeed, the definition the AFA is using is along those lines - it is not a "there isn't a God" type definition , it is a "we don't see any evidence for God" type definition.

Furthermore, some of the most active "atheist" proselytisers I know (in terms of pointing out issues with Christianity and the Christian God) are not actually atheists at all but deists.


Atheists want to convince others. In a nutshell, atheism (like communism) is another religion.

This is false (and has been rebutted many times before). Atheism is not a religion because it has no socially determined ritual aspect.


It can be argued that non-believers and atheists are the same, but I don't agree with that view.

What is really going on is that there are a range of different beliefs that can usefully be considered atheist. The position you call "non-believer" is one of those. The position that asserts that God does not exist is another, and my position (which asserts that the statement "God exists" is a contradiction in terms) is another still. :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
09-12-2008, 10:43 AM
That doesn't answer my question at all.

Which question?

Kevin Bonham
09-12-2008, 10:24 PM
Which question?

My question was:

So if someone doesn't believe a particular law should be passed, are they being active about what they believe or what they don't believe?

My reason for asking it was that you had asserted that "There is a difference between being active about what you believe and about what you don't believe."

So I was giving a hypothetical example (not directly related to the atheism case) in which it is tricky to tell whether someone is being active about what they believe or about what they don't believe.

I may have been doing this because I believe your distinction is not a firm one or I may have been doing this because I don't believe your distinction is a firm one. You tell me which if you think it is so easy to separate the two. :lol:

MichaelBaron
10-12-2008, 09:37 AM
Advertising rejection for the Atheist foundation does not surprise me at all. I can think of many examples of similar nature. Its all to do with 'political correctness"

I often see job advertisements saying "Aboriginals and Torres Straight Islanders encouraged to apply" or "women are encouraged to apply". Have not seen one ad saying "men are encouraged to apply" or "white anglo-saxons are encouraged to apply".

On a positive note, i think its not only Christian churches that are able to advertise, I have seen ads for sinagogues and mosks so i would not regard the rejection to place an ad for the Atheist foundation as entirely pro-Christian. However, i personally see no reason other than "political correctness" for such ad to be rejected.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-12-2008, 09:41 AM
My question was:

So if someone doesn't believe a particular law should be passed, are they being active about what they believe or what they don't believe?

My reason for asking it was that you had asserted that "There is a difference between being active about what you believe and about what you don't believe."

So I was giving a hypothetical example (not directly related to the atheism case) in which it is tricky to tell whether someone is being active about what they believe or about what they don't believe.

I may have been doing this because I believe your distinction is not a firm one or I may have been doing this because I don't believe your distinction is a firm one. You tell me which if you think it is so easy to separate the two. :lol:

That one I already answered. Law is compulsory and affects everyone. Issues like global warming propaganda affect everyone as it leads to government actions and cost everyone a lot. In those cases being sceptical is not sufficient.
Religion(s) only affects those that follow it/them (violent sects excluded, but they are not subject of the ad or discussion).

Atheists from AFA claim to be sceptical. If that was true, they would not bother organising and proselyting.

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2008, 08:33 PM
That one I already answered. Law is compulsory and affects everyone. Issues like global warming propaganda affect everyone as it leads to government actions and cost everyone a lot. In those cases being sceptical is not sufficient.
Religion(s) only affects those that follow it/them (violent sects excluded, but they are not subject of the ad or discussion).

I now have some idea why you replied the way you did, but I still don't see what bearing this claimed distinction has on your claimed difference between acting on the basis of a belief and acting on the basis of the lack of a belief. Are you saying that those who act against a law are always acting on the basis of a positive belief that the law is wrong?

I also think your distinction above has its problems too. Many laws affect only some people, yet people who are not affected by them personally may still decide to oppose them. Furthermore, religion has considerable effects on the lives of unbelievers, including on the votes of certain politicians on a range of issues affecting many people.

One of my own political campaigns was against compulsory student unionism in the form in which it existed on my campus. My main motivation for getting involved in that issue was that the money I was required to pay in student union memberships was then (to some very small degree) distributed to religious societies. So religion was indeed affecting me, because I was forced as a student to pay for it. It may have been only a few cents here and there but I found it such a vital issue that it led to such things as me successfully disrupting student rallies by heckling them. :lol:


Atheists from AFA claim to be sceptical. If that was true, they would not bother organising and proselyting.

I am certain this doesn't follow. For instance I will frequently debate a point with someone, not because I am convinced that they are wrong, but because I am sceptical that they are right and think it should be known that their argument has not convinced everyone.

Some people will also publicly oppose a development proposal not because they are convinced it is a bad proposal but because they do not think a sufficient case for it has yet been made.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2008, 08:46 PM
One of my own political campaigns was against compulsory student unionism in the form in which it existed on my campus. My main motivation for getting involved in that issue was that the money I was required to pay in student union memberships was then (to some very small degree) distributed to religious societies. So religion was indeed affecting me, because I was forced as a student to pay for it.
This is a problem with compulsory unionism not with religion. Same applies to compulsory taxpayer funding of government schools: forcing people to pay for indoctrination of beliefs they oppose.


Some people will also publicly oppose a development proposal not because they are convinced it is a bad proposal but because they do not think a sufficient case for it has yet been made.
It's still reasonable to differentiate between opposing something because they think it's wrong and because they don't think it's proven right.

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2008, 09:02 PM
This is a problem with compulsory unionism not with religion.

It was clearly a problem with the religious groups as well because when I asked them to cease taking my money and refund it (which I did) they were not interested. :lol:


It's still reasonable to differentiate between opposing something because they think it's wrong and because they don't think it's proven right.

I think it is a distinction well worth making since there are many clearcut cases of one or the other that should on no account be confused with the opposite. Indeed I find it very tedious to deal with simpletons who interpret all scepticism towards their position as committed support for its opposite.

But to pretend that all active "atheists" are either (a) on the same side of the divide or (b) even clearly identifiable as belonging to one side of it or the other, is simply incorrect.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2008, 11:47 PM
It was clearly a problem with the religious groups as well because when I asked them to cease taking my money and refund it (which I did) they were not interested. :lol:
It was probably a general problem with all clubs funded by confiscated money. You probably would have received the same response from Young Labor or hockey or debating groups.


I think it is a distinction well worth making since there are many clearcut cases of one or the other that should on no account be confused with the opposite. Indeed I find it very tedious to deal with simpletons who interpret all scepticism towards their position as committed support for its opposite.
Similarly, the Anointed treat any skepticism about the likely results of their policies with hatred of the people their policies are supposedly trying to help.

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2008, 11:54 PM
Hobart ABC-TV news carried an item about the issue today as an anti-discrimination complaint has now been lodged.

The item confirmed that the Metro has in the past carried ads for the so-called Human Life Protection Society, a religious group that is anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia and anti-stem-cell-research among other things. As it turns out the HLPS's website confirms this too; it has had bus ads promoting its "prayers for mothers and unborn babies" (read: anti-abortion sermons)

The ABC-TV item advised that Metro had now decided to cease accepting political and religious advertising. It did not make clear when or why this decision had been made but I am intrigued that the reply to David Nicholls apparently did not just simply cite this policy. This is suggestive of policy on the run but I am waiting to see what (if anything) they have to say in response to my letter.

Desmond
12-01-2009, 03:00 PM
Speaking of censorship...
There is a large billboard by the side of the road feeding to the Brisbane airport. For the last several months, it has read, "Want longer lasting sex..." and a number to call, something about erectile dysfunction no doubt. A couple of weeks ago I notice that the "sex" part had been overwritten with a "censored" sign.

Is the word "sex" really so offensive?
Recently changed to:

Men, Do It Longer

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2009, 03:15 PM
The item confirmed that the Metro has in the past carried ads for the so-called Human Life Protection Society, a religious group that is anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia and anti-stem-cell-research among other things.
I doubt it. They probably support the highly productive somatic ("adult") stem cell research that has produced over 70 types of treament, and merely oppose embryonic stem cell research which has yet to produce a cure (http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm). For example:


Bone marrow stem cells have also been used to rebuild a woman’s windpipe (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2008/6010.html) and repaired faulty eyesight (http://www.physorg.com/news98033937.html), and grown neurons in human brains (http://www.pnas.org/content/100/3/1364.abstract)

Umbilical cord blood stem cells have also grown a liver (http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/714428/healthwrap_ethical_stem_cells_grow_liver/index.html?source=r_health) and enabled a 37-year-old woman in South Korea to walk after a bad fall from a bridge into a creek had paralyzed her 19 years before (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16162459?dopt=citation).

Researchers Grow Neural, Blood Vessel Cells from Adult Stem Cells (http://www.physorg.com/news77813103.html)

Ordinary human cells can be turned into stem cells. (http://www.world-science.net/othernews/071120_stemcell.htm)

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2009, 04:43 PM
I doubt it. They probably support the highly productive somatic ("adult") stem cell research that has produced [URL="http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm"]over 70 types of treament, and merely oppose embryonic stem cell research

Correct. Their website does indicate opposition only to "Embryonic stem-cell research" with no comment about any other form.

They also claim to have a "pro-life" stand on "reproduction technology" and "cloning" though I suspect that position consists of moral opposition to such things whether they are actually supportive of life or not.

No response yet from Metro to my letter.

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2009, 04:32 PM
Anti-Discrimination Commissioner has determined that Metro Tasmania has a case to answer and a conciliation hearing will be held in August.

According to the AFA, Metro's claim to have recently changed their policies on the matter was exposed as unsubstantiated.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-07-2009, 10:15 AM
Firstly, I wish to establish whether proposed AFA advertising was indeed rejected for these reasons, and if so whether the advertising was rejected because it promoted atheism or specifically because it promoted the AFA (and if the latter, why).

Secondly, in the event that the advertising was indeed rejected for this reason, I wish to establish whether Metro have also taken a decision to rule out accepting advertising from religious groups or concerning religious activities in the future.
Does it effectively equate religious and atheist groups?

CameronD
03-07-2009, 10:30 AM
This advertisement was pulled from England after complaints from the gay community.

OkT_d2OTgv0

PXap2twPc-0&

Desmond
03-07-2009, 01:46 PM
:hmm: still trying to work out what this ad has to do with, or why it might be offensive to, gay people.

Kevin Bonham
03-07-2009, 02:32 PM
OK, I guess the basis for offence being taken is that the ad can be seen as implying that people who are portrayed as inadequately masculine are a disgrace to males and it is OK to hassle them. The tight yellow shorts might be seen as effeminate and the focus on the speedwalker's behind might be seen as a suggestion that he (homo)sexualises himself in such a manner. Not really how an Olympic speedwalker dresses either; Olympic speedwalkers tend to wear much looser shorts.

I don't blame the advertisers or those complaining for this situation. The advertisers are right to think this sort of ad should not be a problem and those complaining are right to think it could be. The real problem is that those who are prejudiced and inclined to vilify for irrelevant reasons can easily have their stereotypes reinforced by something that is seen at even hinting at validating them. I commend Mars on voluntarily pulling the ad.

Basil
03-07-2009, 02:42 PM
What about this? Would gay people be offended by this? I'm just the messenger. :uhoh:

K1Y6PchDYfw

Kevin Bonham
03-07-2009, 03:01 PM
Well that was just a really odd blooper. But it's amusing that she said "gay" (something that has no impact on ability to climb Mt Everest) when she meant "blind". Perhaps something else in the show's content for the day contributed to the blooper in which case I would not read too much into it.

Basil
03-07-2009, 03:04 PM
Well that was just a really odd blooper. But it's amusing that she said "gay" (something that has no impact on ability to climb Mt Everest) when she meant "blind". Perhaps something else in the show's content for the day contributed to the blooper in which case I would not read too much into it.
Perhaps she'd already seen the clip and the guest displayed homosexual stereotypical behaviour and good 'ol freud kicked in! If so, how embarrassment!

Oepty
04-07-2009, 06:55 AM
OK, I guess the basis for offence being taken is that the ad can be seen as implying that people who are portrayed as inadequately masculine are a disgrace to males and it is OK to hassle them. The tight yellow shorts might be seen as effeminate and the focus on the speedwalker's behind might be seen as a suggestion that he (homo)sexualises himself in such a manner. Not really how an Olympic speedwalker dresses either; Olympic speedwalkers tend to wear much looser shorts.

I don't blame the advertisers or those complaining for this situation. The advertisers are right to think this sort of ad should not be a problem and those complaining are right to think it could be. The real problem is that those who are prejudiced and inclined to vilify for irrelevant reasons can easily have their stereotypes reinforced by something that is seen at even hinting at validating them. I commend Mars on voluntarily pulling the ad.

It seems the phrase on the screen at the end saying GET SOME NUTS is offensive to some. I am totally puzzled about how it is offensive to anyone but, perhaps, speedwalkers.
Scott

Redmond Barry
04-07-2009, 08:14 AM
if i was a speed walker id be demanding that gay groups retract their arrogant assertion that they are the sole demographic identified with this sport and it is only their image that is effected by the ad. a sport which in no way represents people of a certain sexual persuasion as far as i am aware of.

honestly if it wasnt mentioned id never of made a link between homosexuality and tight yellow shorts. the guy isnt charles bronson but i wouldnt say they have amped up the gayness to the maximum either.

i think the other snickers ad with mr t in it was directed towards football (soccer) players, so the adds are really just : pastimes that are seen as defensive or passive with "t" dishing out some nut flavoured punishment.

whats the big deal ?

left wing nonsense triumps once again. ;) ;)

CameronD
04-07-2009, 01:34 PM
In this one they added the wife in the background to avoid the same issue.

wiixrRgysks

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2009, 02:50 PM
if i was a speed walker id be demanding that gay groups retract their arrogant assertion that they are the sole demographic identified with this sport and it is only their image that is effected by the ad.

Has there been such an assertion, and if so where?


honestly if it wasnt mentioned id never of made a link between homosexuality and tight yellow shorts. the guy isnt charles bronson but i wouldnt say they have amped up the gayness to the maximum either.

True; it could have been considerably more overt and may not have even been intentional.

Redmond Barry
04-07-2009, 08:50 PM
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]Has there been such an assertion, and if so where?

the assertion is primarily the fact that they protested to have an ad pulled from tv screens involving a man who indicates no particular sexual preference, simply because they "interpret" it to be degrading to their particular sexual orientation.

the assertion is arrogant because it implies

a) a complete knowledge of the sexual preferences of "speedwalkers/people who wear tight attire".

b) that heterosexual people create meaning in a uniform manner and have no independence of thought. their need to protest the ad indicates a very narrow spectrum of understanding as to how heterosexual people would view such an ad. people talk about australians understanding minorities but the same needs to said about minority groups ability to learn about the greater populace and their individual personalities. this protest is a little histerical and indicates a severe lack of perspective.

i mean really, the probelm isnt primarily the shorts is it?

and ive watched olympic walking and it seems he was moving in the same manner as they do. i can honestly say there are no homosexual ideosyncracies with the way he walks. i didnt even know gay people all walked in the same manner or had a particular walking style to start with.

in fact id be offended if i was gay, having some "representitive" group assert the views of the groups "cliche" as opposed to the whole demographic having an equitable say in matters.

this protest only goes to perpetuate the image of gay people as people who partake in passive past times, that also wear tight attire. now i dont believe that, but the gay lobby certainly thinks that is the only interpretation that heterosexual individuals will derive from the add.

the protest actually works against the homosexual community as it serves to marginalise the demographic into a particular image. no demographic enjoys being typecast so i can only imagine that this move to protest the ad wasnt thought out too well.

a case of a minority group misinterpreting victimisation, having their wishes granted by a fairly insipid company (snickers - show some nuts yourself !!).

and anyway how can you protest against such a great ad with mr "t" in it.

in closing ......... mr "t" is AWESOME. ;) ;)

Kevin Bonham
04-07-2009, 09:06 PM
the assertion is primarily the fact that they protested to have an ad pulled from tv screens involving a man who indicates no particular sexual preference, simply because they "interpret" it to be degrading to their particular sexual orientation.

I think you're reading things into the complaint that are not there. To say that the ad taken as a whole might encourage vilification of gay men, whether it is true or not, is not the same as asserting that gay men are the sole demographic identified with the sport, or even that the sport itself is considered "gay".


and ive watched olympic walking and it seems he was moving in the same manner as they do. i can honestly say there are no homosexual ideosyncracies with the way he walks. i didnt even know gay people all walked in the same manner or had a particular walking style to start with.

They don't, but there are still sometimes stereotypes to the effect that gays are likely to walk or talk "funny".


this protest only goes to perpetuate the image of gay people as people who partake in passive past times, that also wear tight attire. now i dont believe that, but the gay lobby certainly thinks that is the only interpretation that heterosexual individuals will derive from the add.

Well, no. The "gay lobby" (actually it was only an American gay rights group that complained) would be concerned about a tiny minority of people taking it a certain way (whether those people are actually heterosexuals or not is another question).


the protest actually works against the homosexual community as it serves to marginalise the demographic into a particular image. no demographic enjoys being typecast so i can only imagine that this move to protest the ad wasnt thought out too well.

Perhaps not. There has been some backlash from some (ostensibly) gay posters on websites saying that the American group in question should have stuck to more serious and clearcut cases of homophobia.

Redmond Barry
05-07-2009, 01:43 AM
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]I think you're reading things into the complaint that are not there. To say that the ad taken as a whole might encourage vilification of gay men, whether it is true or not, is not the same as asserting that gay men are the sole demographic identified with the sport, or even that the sport itself is considered "gay".

what do you think the protest relates to if it is not in regards to the vilification of gay men ? what other reason is there ?

theyre arguing that the image of said male, in said sport, in said attire, in the particular scenario of being shot at with a nut based confectionary is offensive to their group. i cant see how you can think that there is no link between a gay group protesting about an ad seen to encourage the vilification of gay men and asserting that the sport of speedwalking is a sport exclusively the domain of gay men. the identification of this individual as gay is partially based on the way he is moving in the participation of speedwalking. therefore ...........


They don't, but there are still sometimes stereotypes to the effect that gays are likely to walk or talk "funny".

yes and stereotypes usually only interest the lowest common denominator, people whose beliefs in any particular interest are markedly regimented and unambiguous. stereotypes like asian kids are all good at math, tasmanians are all inbred, a mans post defines his abilities and importance, all black men have enormous penises and gay people walk and talk a certain way are only humorous at best (humorous in the "how did this nonsense integrate into common knowledge" way). its laughably that some people actually believe in these "guidelines", but pulling an ad off tv isnt going to change the style of their thinking least of all one that isnt offensive to start with.

most people dont believe in particular tenets regarding any particular race/sexuality (usually used only facetiously if at all), so therefore i simply cant agree that this protest matters a great deal. i know of heterosexual people who walk in odd ways as well, so it would be easy like so many other stereotypes to disprove this "walking funny = exclusive domain of gay people" claim.
people of limited abilities require narrowly defined rules to validate their actions towards minority groups they have no intension to meaningfully interact with. removing this ad is unlikely to affect someone who doesnt have the faculties to independently judge individuals on merit, as opposed to their inflexible stereotypical view.

Well, no. The "gay lobby" (actually it was only an American gay rights group that complained) would be concerned about a tiny minority of people taking it a certain way (whether those people are actually heterosexuals or not is another question).

if a tiny group from the gay minority are offended with this then they honestly must believe that there is only a very narrow range of personality types that they and every other gay person can exhibit, simply because of their sexuality. that is ignorant at best . if thats the case it certainly isnt a problem snickers created. maybe the people respresenting this "gay minority" referenced characteristics similar to that of this mans from another gay peer and didnt have the desire to deviate too far from it, but fell into what is known as the "gay stereotypical image". that doesnt mean that every gay persons characteristic is homogeneous and that a small cliche should speak for the greater majority. it would be arrogant for any small group of heterosexual people to claim ownership of his/her sexualitys image so the same applies to gay people. im sure there are gay people that cringe during "mardi gras" that do not "sound" gay and who wear clothes that are neither garish nor revealing (a stereotype one might form from participants at sydney mardi gras).

similarly if heterosexual people are offended (left wing types usually) they too are exhibiting a narrow or stereotypical view of gay people in endorsing this image with their "outrage". this is worse than the heterosexual people that identify this man as gay and thrive in what they see as his humiliation, because at least the people who deride gays openly are being honest about their views. any heterosexual person who convinces themselves that this is offensive is a fraud, as theyre most likely to have very little interest in developing knowledge and integration within the gay community so that they might learn more about individuals and give proper meaning to these people just as any other person in any other demographic should receive to fully understand them. that is if they were honestly interested in this pursuit in the first place..........

if this enables heterosexual people to bask in the adulation of watching a man, with which they presume is, from the other sexual preference to be humiliated by a black dude with a gun that fire chocolate bars, then there really isnt a lot that can change the underlying belief system of those people. to make such a tenuous link between sexual preference and "man speedwalking in advertisement " you really have to be systematically indoctrinated to automatically search for those indicators of what defines homosexuality in the first place. an individual like that isnt going to change his ideology with the banning of an inoffensive advertisement, so it really is a futile pursuit.

its simply comedy : a guy getting shot at with chocolate bars by a 1980's tv icon, and thats all. how that is humiliating to anybody i simply cannot fathom. there really isnt a need for snickers to pander to the wishes of an presumptuous and irrational minority (the minority inside the gay demographic) who have too much time on their hands pursuing superfluous concerns.

Perhaps not. There has been some backlash from some (ostensibly) gay posters on websites saying that the American group in question should have stuck to more serious and clearcut cases of homophobia.

i agree. these are the people that sound more likely to understand what serious victimisation is and what, like this ad, is not worth considering.

Kevin Bonham
05-07-2009, 11:25 PM
what do you think the protest relates to if it is not in regards to the vilification of gay men ? what other reason is there ?

I didn't say it relates to anything else (and indeed that is exactly what I think the protest did relate to).


theyre arguing that the image of said male, in said sport, in said attire, in the particular scenario of being shot at with a nut based confectionary is offensive to their group. i cant see how you can think that there is no link between a gay group protesting about an ad seen to encourage the vilification of gay men and asserting that the sport of speedwalking is a sport exclusively the domain of gay men. the identification of this individual as gay is partially based on the way he is moving in the participation of speedwalking. therefore ...........

But the supposed identification is also based on the way he is dressed and the way he is called a "disgrace to the man race". That he is speedwalking is incidental. He could be moving in many other supposedly unusual ways while costumed similarly and described similarly and the same complaints would be likely to arise.


most people dont believe in particular tenets regarding any particular race/sexuality (usually used only facetiously if at all), so therefore i simply cant agree that this protest matters a great deal.

Obviously the concern is not with "most people" but with the potential inadvertent legitimisation of violent behaviour by a tiny minority.


i know of heterosexual people who walk in odd ways as well, so it would be easy like so many other stereotypes to disprove this "walking funny = exclusive domain of gay people" claim.

Indeed, but as you mention, the "lowest common denominator" prone to take such stereotypes seriously are typically too bigoted to be changed by an easy disproof of their attitudes.

What I think can have some effect, however, is whether or not bigots think their views are endorsed by celebrity figures they can look up to. I think it's a long bow to draw to say that this particular ad would have caused even one bigot to go out and vilify or harass. But in more extreme cases I can certainly see the point in trying to put a cap on even unintended public promotion of anti-gay stereotypes.


if a tiny group from the gay minority are offended with this then they honestly must believe that there is only a very narrow range of personality types that they and every other gay person can exhibit, simply because of their sexuality.

Again, I don't see why. Their concern is that people who wrongly adhere to a false stereotype of gayness may be encouraged to discriminate against gay people on that basis. That doesn't mean they themselves agree with the stereotype.

I should point out that superficial homophobia of the kind that says "anyone who looks like <whatever> must be gay, let's hassle them" is not only a problem for gay people. Often the bigots will incorrectly target people who are not actually gay.


maybe the people respresenting this "gay minority" referenced characteristics similar to that of this mans from another gay peer and didnt have the desire to deviate too far from it, but fell into what is known as the "gay stereotypical image".

I don't think there is any warrant for this hypothesis. It may be true but for all you know the gay lobby group who complained could include gays who look almost as macho as Mr T.


im sure there are gay people that cringe during "mardi gras" that do not "sound" gay and who wear clothes that are neither garish nor revealing (a stereotype one might form from participants at sydney mardi gras).

I doubt anyone apart from a very small number of bigots draws such a conclusion from the Mardi Gras. Obviously the vast majority of gay people are no more likely to dress in a garish/revealing manner than the average heterosexual and virtually no-one concludes that what is obviously a carnival is in fact a common gay mode of dress. Gay people who cringe during Mardi Gras? Sure, just as there are straight people who cringe during heterosexual equivalents (and probably a lot more of them proportionally too.)


similarly if heterosexual people are offended (left wing types usually) they too are exhibiting a narrow or stereotypical view of gay people in endorsing this image with their "outrage".

Again, I can't see why. Saying that an ad might promote homophobia because it could be seen as stereotyping gayness and then demeaning that stereotype (of course the ad doesn't really do either of these things) is not the same thing as saying that the stereotype is correct.


if this enables heterosexual people to bask in the adulation of watching a man, with which they presume is, from the other sexual preference to be humiliated by a black dude with a gun that fire chocolate bars, then there really isnt a lot that can change the underlying belief system of those people.

Well, we don't even know that any heterosexual complainants have objected to the ad.


its simply comedy : a guy getting shot at with chocolate bars by a 1980's tv icon, and thats all.

That is how I read the ad too; I think it is funny and contains nothing intentionally harmful. But there are plenty of idiots out there and if you unintentionally give an idiot an inch the idiot may take a mile of legitimisation for his/her bigoted behaviour. As such I can see where the concern came from - and I think it's well worth understanding that rather than stereotyping the complainants - even though in this case I believe it was overblown and probably counterproductive.

Redmond Barry
06-07-2009, 04:46 AM
But the supposed identification is also based on the way he is dressed and the way he is called a "disgrace to the man race". That he is speedwalking is incidental. He could be moving in many other supposedly unusual ways while costumed similarly and described similarly and the same complaints would be likely to arise.

i note you mentioned this is a "supposed unusual" way to move. speedwalking is a marginalised sport having little to no profile, whose participants move in as you say "supposed unusual" ways. you cant seriously believe some people wont include this facet of the mans appearance if they indeed deem him to be gay, a person from a marginalised demographic. im quite sure that bigots arent usually the type of people to participate in marginalised activities, so any activitiy they deem as unusual or unfamiliar to their own way of life only goes to assist in their potential bigotry of that individual. the link that is being made by the protesters is made from evidence that seems ambiguous at best. the guy didnt say anything in the stereotypical gay way, he doesnt look like any gay person ive even seen and when he runs off after getting shot at, he runs like any normal guy would run.

if mr t had of said "get some nuts..........faggot" then there would be no confusion. but the confusion over this protest prompts me to question whether there is some endemic homosexuality in the sport as the footage isnt concrete in confirming any historical homosexual image that people could use as a catalyst to vilify gays. is this gay group protesting in the knowledge that they their members compile a sizeable proportion of this sport and they desire to protect the image of the sport? who knows, but its a question im thinking about since nothing else screams homosexuality in the mans appearance.

how is it that his movements as a speedwalker are incidental ? they cant be.
its a low impact non combative sport. its not known historically to be prized as excessively manly. he isnt performing the sport any differently to actual olympic participants, his pants though tightish dont indicate sexual preference as the cut of ones fabric still hasnt been proven to indicate ones sexual orientation (those afl players i watch on tv wear tightish pants, but they certainly dont have a gay persona attached to them).

heterosexual people can be a disgrace to the man race as well (if thats actually something to be conscious of in the first place). theres really no way it can argued that the term "disgrace to the man race" is condescending to gay people. all men can show signs which have been traditionally been seen to be weak or participate in "supposed unusual pastimes", irrespective of their sexual preference.

if you watch the mens walking events at the olympics next time and see a guy with tight yellow pants walking in the same manner, are you going to presume that bigots are going to inpret his sexual orientation a certain way ?
maybe, but those same people arent going to amend their ideas of what that image represents to them just because they see fewer instances of it. with such a limited scope of ability to process a miriad of personality traits that every individual exhibits, they would have a certain need to bypass this process subconsciously with the aid of whatever is the most popular stereotype in their immediate community to deal with demograhics they find confronting.


Obviously the concern is not with "most people" but with the potential inadvertent legitimisation of violent behaviour by a tiny minority.

the lowest of the low are restless beings in need of constant stimulation. they are neither able to facilitate a reflective nor imaginative approach to applying guidelines to the way in which they inhabit this planet. if a tiny minority of people truly revel in believing this to be harrassment of gay people i doubt whether the environment they are placed in will allow them to change tack. simply eliminating a single add off tv isnt going to change a bigot if all his family, the guys he drinks with at his local hotel, his co-workers and possibly even his religious beliefs bind him to a certain mentality.

Indeed, but as you mention, the "lowest common denominator" prone to take such stereotypes seriously are typically too bigoted to be changed by an easy disproof of their attitudes.

exactly, they havent the capacity to amend their ways so it really is in vain to protest this sort of ad, as it only creates addition controversy surrounding it and inadvertantly validates the image to those people who believe it to be gay in the first place.

What I think can have some effect, however, is whether or not bigots think their views are endorsed by celebrity figures they can look up to. I think it's a long bow to draw to say that this particular ad would have caused even one bigot to go out and vilify or harass. But in more extreme cases I can certainly see the point in trying to put a cap on even unintended public promotion of anti-gay stereotypes.

do you believe if it wasnt mr t and the snickers people got some random "tough" guy to be the protagonist that the bigots willingness to adhere to believing in what they see will diminish just because the actor isnt a celebrity. i cant believe that. maybe only in shades of grey would it affect a change in beliefs.

im not sure what kind of content your thinking about in regards to more extreme misinterpretations, but i honestly believe it would be worse for the gay community if they continually protested against content that is unintentionally offensive.

Again, I don't see why. Their concern is that people who wrongly adhere to a false stereotype of gayness may be encouraged to discriminate against gay people on that basis. That doesn't mean they themselves agree with the stereotype.

yes but if people incorrectly adhere to a false stereotype of homosexuality then the gay community as a whole will generally be unhindered as their members wont be harrassed, as they wont exhibit the false stereotype that as you say "people wrongly adhere to". if you only identify a particular demographic through a single image and it is incorrect, then all other individuals in the entire community are unlikely to come under your consideration as part of the groups "perceived image" in question. i doubt bigots are generally highly developed perceptually to include exceptions to the rulebook they construct for these matters.

I should point out that superficial homophobia of the kind that says "anyone who looks like <whatever> must be gay, let's hassle them" is not only a problem for gay people. Often the bigots will incorrectly target people who are not actually gay.

proving that this shouldnt be a protest made (if proven legitimate) on behalf of gay people, but a protest on behalf of people both heterosexual and homosexual that appear to have the same characteristics as the guy getting shot at. the protest being that the physical nuances and selection of clothing are being promoted in relation to a particular sexual preference and discrimination is received (the argument for heterosexuals men), and the continual replication of the same image to define gay people is discriminatory (being the argument from the gay community). if it is proven that there is a successful case for snickers to answer for, it wouldnt primarily be a gay issue. its only an issue for people who exhibit this image.
but im sure if a heterosexual man was to complain that his particular attire and method of moving was bringing him unwanted attention and protested that it was a significant grievance of his to be seen as gay, he would probably be held up to be a bigot himself. obviously he would most likely just desire to have his identity respected, and not have people judge his appearance as an indication of orientation.

but succeeding in changing peoples misconstrued values isnt a process that simply involves removing an image from their viewing habits. bigots are people who like the convenience of constant reference as a comfort because of their negligible capacity to independently analyse. whether its to reference history, reference someone learned in a given subject, reference parents, reference religious figures or reference the government they are happy so long as it is a belief held by members of their immediate community which they can derive fixed meanings from. they live in the harmonious grandeur of ignorance, existing as meaningless consumers of diatribe. any amendment of belief would most likely result in ostracism from their community, a community which they would find near impossible to replace if parted from. so they dont change, it doesnt happen, simply because theyre extremely inflexible, whilst scared of alternatives and the loss of the type of community theyre used to.

I don't think there is any warrant for this hypothesis. It may be true but for all you know the gay lobby group who complained could include gays who look almost as macho as Mr T.

yes but isnt it a bit silly to protest an ad if you cant identify with the speedwalker? i mean it smacks of hypocracy if even one member of the protesting group couldnt identify with the man getting shot at and was as similar to description you gave ......"as macho as mr t". it clearly invalidates the complaint.

if one of the people from the gay lobby is similar in stature to a "mr t type appearance", wouldnt it appear to be ridiculous to be protesting your offence that there is a typical gay image being promoted in the media even though it doesnt appear to conform to their own "mr t like appearance" ? i mean if they really believed that nonsense then they are never going to be harrassed because they appear as what they believe to be the image of a heterosexual man. its not a practical argument.


Sure, just as there are straight people who cringe during heterosexual equivalents (and probably a lot more of them proportionally too.)

agreed. i call that reality tv.

Again, I can't see why. Saying that an ad might promote homophobia because it could be seen as stereotyping gayness and then demeaning that stereotype (of course the ad doesn't really do either of these things) is not the same thing as saying that the stereotype is correct.

ive never said the stereotype is correct. stereotypes are consistently incorrect, thats their nature. ive only mentioned that the people protesting the ad have misintepreted a man walking in certain way in a particular past-time as a stereotype they identify to be common in tv land to portray gay people. the image isnt the exclusive property of gay group to decides whether it can be presented or not. if it could be proven that only one heterosexual man walks in the exact same manner with the exact same clothing then their complaint is defeated.

the stereotype might be similar, but just like heterosexual people sometimes exhibit traits a homosexual stereotype might be seen to be capable of and vice versa this is a case of a group of people making incorrect assumptions and unnecessary trouble in regards to a trivial matter.

Well, we don't even know that any heterosexual complainants have objected to the ad.

thats true, i was just commenting on a particularly insidious breed of straight person. there is no doubt that this particular breed of heterosexual people and their vicarious "offence" who find this degrading, are complete idiots. these people unfortunately do exist.


That is how I read the ad too; I think it is funny and contains nothing intentionally harmful. But there are plenty of idiots out there and if you unintentionally give an idiot an inch the idiot may take a mile of legitimisation for his/her bigoted behaviour. As such I can see where the concern came from - and I think it's well worth understanding that rather than stereotyping the complainants - even though in this case I believe it was overblown and probably counterproductive.

counterproductive is the best way to describe this.

Redmond Barry
06-07-2009, 07:53 AM
honestly the most offensive thing in relation to that snickers add is bill oreillys comment at about 4:15 in the interview where he replys "i believe you boy".

whats up with that ?? isnt there a more substantial claim there for protest ??

do older black men recognise being called "boy" as just a jovial comment from a white guy, or is attempting to channel the ghost of a planatation owner from the late 1800's the real motive behind oreillys reply ?

im not particularly well versed in o'reilly mannerisms although i am familiar with him enough to know hes a generaly a completely idiot. id be interested to know if he also refers to older white guests of his show as "boy". this would be worth following up more than the snickers nonsense.

i was under the impression that calling any man "boy" is insulting, even moreso black men. surely nothings changed.

strange .......

Kevin Bonham
06-08-2009, 10:37 PM
Atheist Foundation 1-0 Metro

Metro Tasmania will accept ads reading "Atheism - celebrate reason!" next year after a settlement of the discrimination dispute.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-08-2009, 09:24 AM
Atheist Foundation 1-0 Metro
Congratulations.


"Atheism - celebrate reason!"
Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

morebeer
07-08-2009, 11:55 AM
But thinking you have an invisible friend in the sky is the acme of reason.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-08-2009, 01:53 PM
But thinking you have an invisible friend in the sky is the acme of reason.
:hmm: :hmm: What are you talking about? Religions that I know of (there are, of course, many that I am not aware of) don't have "invisible friend in the sky" concept.

BTW - reason is a tool, atheism is concept.
:hmm:, a concept that celebrates a tool?:doh: :doh:

Rincewind
07-08-2009, 04:19 PM
BTW - reason is a tool, atheism is concept.
:hmm:, a concept that celebrates a tool?:doh: :doh:

Ok. So you just don't know what an oxymoron is.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-08-2009, 04:40 PM
Ok. So you just don't know what an oxymoron is.
You are entitled to your opinion.
But people with normal logical abilities understood my post without any problems.

Rincewind
07-08-2009, 06:22 PM
But people with normal logical abilities understood my post without any problems.

I understood what you meant. It was what you said that had me puzzled. But not to worry, your last post closed the gap. ;)

Kevin Bonham
28-05-2011, 01:46 AM
*bump*

This old thread documented the struggles of atheist associations to get their ads accepted by bus companies which had long accepted religious advertising. (Despite the settlement mentioned above, I can't remember seeing any Atheism: Celebrate Reason bus advertising in Tasmania.)

Now an Islamic group called MyPeace is having a go in Sydney (http://www.smh.com.au/national/hes-not-the-son-of-god-just-the-support-act-20110527-1f8j2.html)

Their messages include "Jesus: A Prophet of Islam".

Basil
28-05-2011, 10:50 AM
*bump*

This old thread documented the struggles of atheist associations to get their ads accepted by bus companies which had long accepted religious advertising. (Despite the settlement mentioned above, I can't remember seeing any Atheism: Celebrate Reason bus advertising in Tasmania.)

Now an Islamic group called MyPeace is having a go in Sydney (http://www.smh.com.au/national/hes-not-the-son-of-god-just-the-support-act-20110527-1f8j2.html)

Their messages include "Jesus: A Prophet of Islam".

I have no problem with this. I would have a problem if the message were reversed and Islam extremists (not to mention some freakin' hippie/ do-gooding/ busy bee bleeding hearts) hijacked this country on account of same (Lock in 'you can bet yer sweet bottom dollar that's what would happen, Eddy).

antichrist
28-05-2011, 11:25 AM
*bump*

This old thread documented the struggles of atheist associations to get their ads accepted by bus companies which had long accepted religious advertising. (Despite the settlement mentioned above, I can't remember seeing any Atheism: Celebrate Reason bus advertising in Tasmania.)

Now an Islamic group called MyPeace is having a go in Sydney (http://www.smh.com.au/national/hes-not-the-son-of-god-just-the-support-act-20110527-1f8j2.html)

Their messages include "Jesus: A Prophet of Islam".

Because nothing can be proven and because these issues are not really important to survival, only important in their heads, it does not really matter what anyone says or believes, only trouble is that secularists have to clean up their mess afterwards and struggle to keep society modern and humane.

Actually the Islamic version of Jesus is more sustainable, assuming that in their version he does not claim to come back in their lifetime

antichrist
15-06-2011, 02:54 PM
http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/-/watch/25607387/billboard-ban/

this is about an atheist billboard being banned, probably some Christians complaining. But they cant help themselves

Kevin Bonham
15-06-2011, 03:16 PM
I commend the Christian guy they interviewed on his fair response to the ad. Also the atheist for avoiding ranting and simply pointing out that the banning (for whatever reason) has backfired since now the billboard is more prominent than ever.