# Concerned Parent! HORRIBLE Nintendo Slogan!



## Raven (Mar 23, 2006)

Am I being oversensitive to this? or is this just creepy?

Nintendo is running a new commercial in our area where you see a pack of 7 and 8 year old girls dressed up like princesses running through an obsticle course. So far it's fine, but at the very end you breifly see the words "Touching is Good"

WHAT!?! Whoa! Slow down there fireball. Let's delve into a little associative psychology why not? I see this somewhat like the old joke "Say Stop three times real fast. Stop, Stop, Stop. Now what do you do when you come to a green light?" It's basic Pavlovian Classical Conditioning, the person usually blurts out "Stop" before they realize their error.

Now you are doing basicly the same thing with little girls and the phrase "touching is good"?? 

I'm sorry if I am making more of this than should be but this just strikes me as both sick and dangerous. At the very least it creeps me out.

What's more, I don't even know why they would adopt such a slogan in the first place. It's not like their little game machine is touch-screen or something, or if it is they certainly haven't been advertising it around here. Just the game for it.

What do you think?  Am I over-reacting here or is this a dangerous and irresponsible advertising campaign?

We've spent all these years teaching our Children that "Touching is NOT good" to have them come along with a catch-phrase TARGETED AT CHILDREN, that is going to stick in their heads is irreprehensible!

I've already written to Nintendo expressing my concerns about their new advertising campaign (I went to www.nintendo.com and clicked on Contact Us) and have spoken to a number of other parents who feel the same way I do.  One of them brought up the point "Because the slogan appears so breifly on screen it almost bordered on subliminal advertising"

If you haven't seen this commercial, you may view it online Here
God Bless
~ Raven ~


----------



## licia (Mar 23, 2006)

It seems that these issues arise quicker than we can work on doing anything about them, but it does help to call the companies on our concerns.  My dil did something in her mall that I wouldn't have thought of.  The Victoria's Secret was right near where a store was that catered to children.  In the VS window was a row of mannequins wearing thongs. She went in and asked them to move them to the back of the store. They told her they couldn't do it - the layout was company policy.  She got on her cellphone and called the home office and told them.  When she came back by the thonged mannequins had been replaced by those with more appropriate window shopping attire. We have more voice than we think sometimes and shouldn't hesitate to speak out.


----------



## GB (Mar 23, 2006)

I agree that the slogan is in very bad taste and i think they should remove it without a doubt. I do not agree that we teach our children that touching is bad. My child will be taught that there are good touches and bad touches. Touching CAN be good and is actually necessary. Can you imagine a child growing up without hugs?

I think the slogan is horrible though. The first thing you think of (at least the first thing I though of) was not a nice thing. I wonder what the heck those executives were thinking when they OK'd this one.


----------



## BigDog (Mar 23, 2006)

Keep doing what you are doing, and I"d say go to the media. The media here in MN, particularly television news media, is very receptive to news input from their viewers. If they dsetermine it is big enough for a story, they'll run it. If enough people go with you of the same mindset as you, I think they'll certainly investigate more and likely do a report on it. Since the advertisement is easily available, they could even have that as part of their investigative report.


----------



## texasgirl (Mar 23, 2006)

No overreacting that I can see! I have not seen it yet. I always tried to teach my kids the difference in touching, hugs, a touch on the arm etc... compared to what isn't allowed. But, there are so many that don't think it would ever happen to their kid and don't teach them the difference and that it's okay to speak out. For a company that is so kid involved, that, imo, is very inappropriate advertising.


----------



## Raven (Mar 23, 2006)

Yeah I agree with you there GB.  We have to teach them the difference between a handshake and... well, something else, and we also have to teach them that sometimes the Doctor needs to touch places that may not always be comfortable but beyond that, no way Jose!

I'm tempted to write to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children as well as the FTC, FCC, National Council of Catholic Bishops and the Associated Press!

Better yet, in some states we have an election coming up.  Let's let our Congressmen know how we feel too!

~ Raven ~


----------



## SizzlininIN (Mar 23, 2006)

GB said:
			
		

> I agree that the slogan is in very bad taste and i think they should remove it without a doubt. I do not agree that we teach our children that touching is bad. My child will be taught that there are good touches and bad touches. Touching CAN be good and is actually necessary. Can you imagine a child growing up without hugs?
> 
> I think the slogan is horrible though. The first thing you think of (at least the first thing I though of) was not a nice thing. I wonder what the heck those executives were thinking when they OK'd this one.


 
Agree with GB!


----------



## buckytom (Mar 23, 2006)

let 'em, have it with both barrels raven!


----------



## pdswife (Mar 23, 2006)

I agree.... in this day and age for a major company (aimed at kids) saying touch is a good thing sounds bad!


----------



## mudbug (Mar 23, 2006)

just gross.


----------



## corazon (Mar 23, 2006)

I don't see what the slogan has to do with an obsticle course.  It doesn't make sense to me.  I will write a complaint too.  Glad we don't have tv!


----------



## phinz (Mar 23, 2006)

> I don't even know why they would adopt such a slogan in the first place. It's not like their little game machine is touch-screen or something,


 
The Nintendo DS *is* a touch screen, fwiw.


----------



## GB (Mar 23, 2006)

OK that makes the slogan take on a whole new meaning. I still think they should have thought a little harder to come up with a better slogan, but at least it makes sense now.


----------



## -DEADLY SUSHI- (Mar 23, 2006)

Raven, I have had experience going against companies for such things and have had good results. Lets go after this one. It makes me SICK. I will do anything to destroy this commercial. I dont have kids but that has no bearing on my feelings. This is a crime IMO. Intentional or not..... the underlying meaning is horrible. Contact me via PM if you want to put our minds together and do something about this.


----------



## phinz (Mar 23, 2006)

If we went after everybody for what we interpret on our own, we'd be too busy for our own lives.

Your interpretation may be completely different than the next person's. No matter what we all may think, we do *not* have a right to not being offended, and anything said or done could be interpreted as offensive to anyone else. Everybody interprets things differently. That's variety, and it's supposed to be the spice of life.

While I may find the commercial distasteful when interpreted in its strictest, most easily offended sense, I think getting shrill and "going against" them isn't going to accomplish much of anything. By the time anything is organized the ad will be long gone and an afterthought and all the protesters will sound like is a bunch of complainers.

Email them and let them know what you think. Tell your friends not to buy their products. But to "destroy" a commercial that is a fleeting moment and won't be around long enough to register on radar is putting a whole lot of effort into something that could be better spent on things that really affect daily life.

Just my $.02 worth. I'm ready to be burned at the stake for it if necessary.


----------



## phinz (Mar 23, 2006)

corazon90 said:
			
		

> I don't see what the slogan has to do with an obsticle course. It doesn't make sense to me. I will write a complaint too. Glad we don't have tv!



This doesn't make sense to me. You're basing your opinion and decision to complain on something you have no direct experience with. I don't protest anything until I have at least seen it for myself. Basing things on hearsay and others' statements is what led to the Salem Witch Trials.


----------



## Raven (Mar 23, 2006)

phinz said:
			
		

> Your interpretation may be completely different than the next person's. No matter what we all may think, we do *not* have a right to not being offended, and anything said or done could be interpreted as offensive to anyone else. Everybody interprets things differently. That's variety, and it's supposed to be the spice of life.


See that's what I thought too, I thought maybe I was just being oversensitive to the slogan, that's why I tossed it out here and on another message board that have a lot of parents of small children and the reaction was the same in both places.  

Understand it's not the commercial, that's fine, it's the slogan at the end that I find objectionable and when you combine it with the fact that it's only flashed on the screen for a second or so it's almost subliminal.

I would see nothing wrong with them simply changing the slogan at the end and keeping the commercials but IMO that slogan has far to grave a connotation.


You can see it for yourself if you want.  Click Here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-oiDmZqNf0

~ Raven ~


----------



## corazon (Mar 23, 2006)

phinz said:
			
		

> This doesn't make sense to me. You're basing your opinion and decision to complain on something you have no direct experience with. I don't protest anything until I have at least seen it for myself. Basing things on hearsay and others' statements is what led to the Salem Witch Trials.


FYI, I did watch the commercial on the link provided in Raven's first post.  I wasn't clear in my post, saying I'd complain but didn't have a tv.  Sorry for the confusion.  I'm just glad my kids won't be watching commercials like this.


----------



## -DEADLY SUSHI- (Mar 24, 2006)

Whether it is plain to see OR something that can be interpreted...... I dont like it. Anything with children that even MIGHT be negative must be dealt with. I understand what the commercial is REALLY saying. But it walks the line. And for that, it should not be on the air. It implies. And can be taken in a negative spin. Would YOU put your stamp of approval on it? 
Bottom line, it is in very poor judgement that this advert is played. They should pull it.


----------



## phinz (Mar 24, 2006)

I wouldn't put my stamp of approval on it, but somebody did. One persons "line" that is "walked" can be completely invisible to the next, or not even be in the same ballpark. Who is the arbiter of what is the "line" and what isn't? What you see as implied may be far from the actual statement. That's the whole issue with implication. It's up to interpretation.



> Anything with children that even MIGHT be negative must be dealt with


 
Your child *might* grow up to be an axe murderer. Should we lock them up based on "might?" "Might be negative" is a *really* broad brush to be painting with. Be very careful when you start judging based on "might be," because that, again, is what also led to the Salem Witch Trials and many other travesties.

Anything can be "taken in a negative spin." Then again, anything can be taken in a positive spin too. Witness this Shining spoof trailer. Could make you actually want to see the movie if you didn't know it was a horror flick, right?

When it comes to children, you cannot protect them from the greater world all the time, and advertising is a pervasive medium that cannot be avoided. The more you try to the more stunned they will be when they enter the real world. I see it in my nieces every day and it's sad. All you can do is teach them what you know and what is right and wrong and hope it takes root.

You have a right to your opinion, and I too think the commercial is in poor taste and should probably not have been aired, but getting shrill over a fleeting commercial isn't a great approach to the greater problems in the world. Constructive commentary and criticism often works better than "going after" companies. It's that whole "flies to honey and vinegar" thing.


----------



## buckytom (Mar 24, 2006)

so we should all just roll over, or bend over to corporations, and take it.

"thank you sir, may i have another!"

not for me or mine.

the slogan has a very specific, very attractive (to particularly sexually inquisitive children) double entendre. 
it's a bit of sleaze in sheep's clothing to entice the buyers, feeding into that dirty little side no one knows you have.

i'm ok if that's aimed at adults, but not in something predominantly used by children. 

caveat emptor. the only way you can affect change is not to patronize the company, but also to make sure they know why. the middle level managers and creative people who make up this stuff are only as good as what they've done lately.


----------



## GB (Mar 24, 2006)

phinz said:
			
		

> Who is the arbiter of what is the "line" and what isn't?


The general public would be. it is up to the public to voice their opinion and outrage if a company does something as tasteless as this.


----------



## phinz (Mar 24, 2006)

No, I'm not saying roll over. I'm saying that to "go after companies" because something "might be negative" is not the best approach.

You are correct. Don't patronize them. Make sure that others you know don't patronize them. Let the company know why. But to get shrill is not going to get any kind of results. This is a fleeting ad that would be forgotten a month from now if it's not turned into a media circus or screamed about from the highest mountaintops. Remember: Any publicity is good publicity. Witness Paris Hilton.


----------



## phinz (Mar 24, 2006)

GB said:
			
		

> The general public would be. it is up to the public to voice their opinion and outrage if a company does something as tasteless as this.


 
Who is the "general public?" I don't sense a general outrage over this commercial in my circle of associates because it is a minor part of the world and the "general public" apparently doesn't even know it exists. It's so far off their radar it might as well be Oceanic Flight 815.

The "general public" have caused a lot of grief and pain over the millenia. Do you *really* want the "general public" to be the arbiter of all things?

The more you shout about it the more people will see the commercial, which is the ultimate goal of advertising.

Again, any publicity is good publicity if it puts your product in the public eye.

You can make your statement without "going after companies."


----------



## GB (Mar 24, 2006)

phinz said:
			
		

> I'm saying that to "go after companies" because something "might be negative" is not the best approach.


I do not think there is any doubt that this IS negative, not that it might be negative. Just look at the reaction is has gotten here on this thread. Not a single person has said yeah that is a good slogan. Everyone agrees that it is tasteless at best.



			
				phinz said:
			
		

> This is a fleeting ad that would be forgotten a month from now if it's not turned into a media circus or screamed about from the highest mountaintops.


That is an assumption you are making, but remember this ad is aimed at children. What if a child who is currently being abused sees this ad and learns from it that touching is good. After all, TV said so. A childs mind is very impressionable. What if that child does not say anything to anyone about his abuse because TV said touching is good? I think to say that this will be forgotten a month from now could be short sighted. Sure I am coming up with a worse case scenario, but if it negatively affects even one single kid then that is too many.


----------



## buckytom (Mar 24, 2006)

if making money is what defines good publicity, then paris is your girl. 
but not all publicity is good. my company is terrified of lawsuits creating bad publicity, therefore affecting ratings. so they cave in to every ridiculous claim. apparently, some people are more equal than others, and all you have to do is complain, and you get what you want. but that's another story. 

getting back to paris, i think she's pretty skanky, and i would suspect that much of the country over the age of 35 does also (unless you're really lonely  ).

selling your morality creates a debt that is eventually paid back with extreme prejudice.


----------



## buckytom (Mar 24, 2006)

on the subject of the general public, isn't that what we call a democracy?

if not the public, with our religious, political, and other leaders in place, whom should make policy?

never underestimate the power of a single voice in a democracy.


----------



## GB (Mar 24, 2006)

phinz said:
			
		

> Who is the "general public?" I don't sense a general outrage over this commercial in my circle of associates because it is a minor part of the world and the "general public" apparently doesn't even know it exists. It's so far off their radar it might as well be Oceanic Flight 815.


Part of the circles you associate are the people on this site. We are a diverse group that spans the entire world. We have young and old alike. The people here have a sense of outrage.



			
				phinz said:
			
		

> The "general public" have caused a lot of grief and pain over the millenia. Do you *really* want the "general public" to be the arbiter of all things?


If not the general public then who? If a company decided to put up an ad that was negative towards Blacks or Jews, or then the general public would be outraged and the ad would be pulled. Why should this be any different?



			
				phinz said:
			
		

> The more you shout about it the more people will see the commercial, which is the ultimate goal of advertising.
> Again, any publicity is good publicity if it puts your product in the public eye.


Unless the commercial is pulled because it is so over the line. All publicity is not good regardless of cliches. A company can fold because of bad publicity. If a company whose main demographic is kids is seen as pomoting child abuse then you can bet parents will stop buying their products.




			
				phinz said:
			
		

> You can make your statement without "going after companies."


Why not go after the company if they are doing somethng morally wrong? Why should they get to just do and say whatever they want without consequences? If the public doesn't make them be responsible for thier actions then who will?


----------



## Alix (Mar 24, 2006)

phinz, your argument for free speech is eloquent. I am not sure though that you are seeing this through a parents eyes. As parents, we are supposed to protect our kids from danger and since TV is such an influential media it is something parents watch diligently. 

Speaking as a parent, I think this is a poor choice of ad. Speaking as someone who deals with kids who have been abused, I think this ad is sending the wrong message. There are much better ways to advertise the product. No one needs to "shut down" Nintendo, but a strong message to the dork who OK'ed that ad is definitely in order.


----------



## phinz (Mar 24, 2006)

I actually *am* looking at it as a parent would, because when in a discussion such as this I try to see all sides so that I may make informed commentary in return, and I agree that a strong message to the one who gave the green light would be the perfect way to make the point. I guess I'm more questioning the "anything that might be perceived as negative should be vilified and crushed by the nebulous general public" mentality than anything else. Again, the people of Salem were the "general public" and look where it got them. (I'm trying so hard not to invoke Godwin's Law right now.  )

You can't censor everybody all the time. You have no right to *not* be offended. If you shriek about something to the four corners of the world more people would notice it than would if you just made your point to the company and moved on. There's a great example of that right here in this discussion. Corazon wouldn't have even known the ad *existed* if it hadn't been brought up.

And yes, Paris Hilton is a complete skank, but she wouldn't even be on the radar either if she didn't have all the publicity, negative and positive, that she's had. She would be just another spoiled little California rich girl with more dollars than sense.


----------



## buckytom (Mar 24, 2006)

well, every good yankee fan knows that salem is a suburb of boston, so, whaddya expect?  

ergot my butt...


----------



## GB (Mar 24, 2006)

phinz said:
			
		

> I guess I'm more questioning the "anything that might be perceived as negative should be vilified and crushed by the nebulous general public" mentality than anything else.


This is not just something that _might _be seen as negative. It *is *negative. This ad is sending a very dangerous message to children and as a responsible society we have an obligation to make sure that the children are protected from messages like this.



			
				phinz said:
			
		

> Corazon wouldn't have even known the ad *existed* if it hadn't been brought up.


But thankfully she *was* made aware of it so she can now do her best to protect her children from it or talk to them about the ad to let them know that no not all touching is good.

Sure you don't have the right to "not be offended", but that does not give the coporations the right to act socially and morally irresponsibly.


----------



## GB (Mar 24, 2006)

buckytom said:
			
		

> well, every good yankee fan knows that salem is a suburb of boston, so, whaddya expect?
> 
> ergot my butt...


Hey Er ah bucky...Watch it


----------



## buckytom (Mar 24, 2006)

lol, HAH! i knew you guys taked that way!!!! 
andy tried to pull that "hollywodd version" garbage...


----------



## GB (Mar 24, 2006)

I don't know what you are talking about. I am from Highland Park, NJ.


----------



## phinz (Mar 24, 2006)

This is not just something that _might _be seen as negative. It *is *negative. This ad is sending a very dangerous message to children and as a responsible society we have an obligation to make sure that the children are protected from messages like this.[/quote]

See the following quote. I didn't get my "might" statement out of the blue:



			
				-DEADLY SUSHI- said:
			
		

> Anything with children that even MIGHT be negative must be dealt with.


 
This is the statement that I take issue with, which started this whole discussion of who is the arbiter of what is and isn't "walking the line"?



			
				GB said:
			
		

> But thankfully she *was* made aware of it so she can now do her best to protect her children from it or talk to them about the ad to let them know that no not all touching is good.


 
Corazon admits to not having a TV. How are the kids going to see the ad? By "talking to them about it" they are exposed to it when they most likely never would have been. That's counter-productive.




			
				GB said:
			
		

> Sure you don't have the right to "not be offended", but that does not give the coporations the right to act socially and morally irresponsibly.


 
I don't recall ever saying it did.


----------



## buckytom (Mar 24, 2006)

i say we burn someone as a witch anyway. we could charge for tickets.

where's alix?


----------



## GB (Mar 24, 2006)

phinz said:
			
		

> Corazon admits to not having a TV. How are the kids going to see the ad?


I am sure her kids have friends. I am willing to bet that at least one of those friends had a TV. Just because they do not have a TV at home does not mean they will not be exposed to this.



			
				phinz said:
			
		

> By "talking to them about it" they are exposed to it when they most likely never would have been. That's counter-productive.


That is what educating our children is all about. I would hardly call that counter productive. Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending this type of thing does not exist or is not offensive is more counter productive then telling our children that a slogan like this is giving the wrong message and that they need to be careful and report any bad touch. 






			
				phinz said:
			
		

> I don't recall ever saying it did.


I was not saying that you did say that. I was just making a statement.


----------



## phinz (Mar 24, 2006)

buckytom said:
			
		

> i say we burn someone as a witch anyway. we could charge for tickets.
> 
> where's alix?


----------



## phinz (Mar 24, 2006)

GB said:
			
		

> That is what educating our children is all about. I would hardly call that counter productive. Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending this type of thing does not exist or is not offensive is more counter productive then telling our children that a slogan like this is giving the wrong message and that they need to be careful and report any bad touch.


 
Why not just educate them in general instead of using an ad that they might never even see as an example?

I would like to know, though, what show was being watched when the ad came on.


----------



## GB (Mar 24, 2006)

phinz said:
			
		

> Why not just educate them in general instead of using an ad that they might never even see as an example?


 
Why does it have to be one or the other?

How about a discussion like this...Hey kids, there is an ad on TV right now that I wanted you to be aware of. it says "touching is good". I want to make sure you know that there are also bad touches and not to be afraid to tell an adult if anyone touches you in a bad way.

Why would that be a bad idea Phinz? the ad is out there. Why pretend that it is not. Why not be proactive in teaching and protecting our children instead of being reactive?


----------



## phinz (Mar 24, 2006)

I understand where you're coming from. I do believe that if you're teaching your kids how to discern between advertising and reality that this won't be an issue to start out with.

I still want to know what show this ad was associated with.


----------



## corazon (Mar 24, 2006)

GB said:
			
		

> I am sure her kids have friends. I am willing to bet that at least one of those friends had a TV. Just because they do not have a TV at home does not mean they will not be exposed to this.
> 
> That is what educating our children is all about. I would hardly call that counter productive. Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending this type of thing does not exist or is not offensive is more counter productive then telling our children that a slogan like this is giving the wrong message and that they need to be careful and report any bad touch.


Well said, GB.
Also, even if we don't have a television and most likely my kids won't be exposed to _all_ distasteful commercials doesn't mean it is okay with me that other kids are exposed to them.


----------



## Raven (Mar 24, 2006)

phinz said:
			
		

> Why not just educate them in general instead of using an ad that they might never even see as an example?
> 
> I would like to know, though, what show was being watched when the ad came on.



They've been somewhat carpet boming the ad on various shows so I don't remember what shows were being watched when I saw them, but isn't it odd that they never advertised the game system, only the game, leaving us to wonder what such a slogan could possibly mean.

The problem with this ad is that we HAVE been educating our children for many years now, and this ad is counter-indicitive of that teaching.  It would be like someone coming out with the slogan "Just Say Yes".

~ Raven~


----------



## phinz (Mar 25, 2006)

http://www.touchingisgood.com/

Don't worry. It's not a site that will get you in trouble at work. It's owned by Nintendo DS. They had a contest to come up with videos. Several are pretty clever.


----------



## buckytom (Mar 25, 2006)

ok, now* i am* offended!

was that one created by icelandic film school grads on acid?

and just to prove that it is intended to trigger a verboten type response, there's a quick flash of a woman unzipping her blouse just a few seconds in. and then it continues with images of young girls, older men, and inferences of both pleasure and frustration.

hey, i've got a new slogan. nintendo ds... games for child pornographers.


----------



## phinz (Mar 25, 2006)

Which one? There are about 20 or 30 on there. They were created by people entering the contest. Nintendo didn't create them.


----------



## buckytom (Mar 25, 2006)

oh, sorry, it was the one that showed up cued on the page. it starts off with the manekin hand in a bunch of canteloupes.

a direct quote from the site : "touching is: thrilling, exciting, fun, weird, interesting. Sometimes a bit taboo. It's how we connect - with each other, the stuff around us and now, our games..."

*a bit taboo*? this is a classic example of pushing immoral ideas on kids, just to picque their rebellious/natural curiosity, in the end to drive up sales. they are making connections between deriving adult pleasure from tactile senses, and a video game. not exactly material for children.

i know, i know, who determines morality. well, touch my kid and i'll let you know...


----------



## phinz (Mar 25, 2006)

And you well should. I don't think a jury would convict, either. I know *I'd* hang the jury if they were trying to find you guilty.

The website itself seems to be driven toward teenagers and young adults, not "kids."

I honestly think it's a clever tagline, and some of the commercials are pretty clever too. The guy throwing fruit at his roommate is hysterical. At the same time, I can see where the issues are. If the commercials ran during, say, Drawn Together, it wouldn't be objectionable afaiac, but if it ran, say, during a Care Bears rerun, well, there would definitely be a problem.


----------



## buckytom (Mar 25, 2006)

man, protecting and edumacating your kids is a non-stop job, huh?

i guess, just like everything else, ya have to constantly keep talking to them, explaining what they don't (or shouldn't yet) understand. but you also have to listen to them, to see what things are influencing them.

it still stinks of double entendre sleaze, imo, aimed at those who are curious about but still shouldn't be having to deal with sleaze.

let's blur the line for them a little more.


----------



## phinz (Mar 25, 2006)

That line's been blurred for millenia. It's just that we're exposed to it in a more forceful way these days if we experience any media exposure whatsoever.

Parenting is, and should be, a full-time job in itself. Only you can engender your kids with the way things should be. It takes a village? Nope. It takes a parent that actually cares, and even then your kids will do what they please in the end, because that's part of growing up.


----------



## -DEADLY SUSHI- (Mar 25, 2006)

> Your child *might* grow up to be an axe murderer. Should we lock them up based on "might?" "Might be negative" is a *really* broad brush to be painting with.


Your logic is flawed. We arest people that are drunk behind the wheel. Why? Because they are very likely to cause an accident. I understand where you are comming from. But logically it is not sound.


----------



## buckytom (Mar 25, 2006)

i think deadly sushi is a witch.


bring me wood and oil!!!!!!


----------



## Raven (Mar 25, 2006)

phinz said:
			
		

> That line's been blurred for millenia. It's just that we're exposed to it in a more forceful way these days if we experience any media exposure whatsoever.
> 
> Parenting is, and should be, a full-time job in itself. Only you can engender your kids with the way things should be. It takes a village? Nope. It takes a parent that actually cares, and even then your kids will do what they please in the end, because that's part of growing up.


This is true, I totally agree with your views of parenting, but as parent's we we have enough bad influences to do battle with without having our TV making our job all the more difficult.    

Our daugther picked up the phrase "Well DUH!" from Michelle in Full House, a program which I believed, up till then, a nice family oriented program, but when it came time to break our daughter of a disgusting habit that she picked up from TV, her rebuttal was "If it's not nice then why do they put it on TV?".  She just couldn't grasp the simple concept that sometimes they put bad things on TV, even in otherwise good shows.  After that she was not allowed to watch Full House anymore, and we quit watching after that as well.

The problem was that the producers of Full House gave into something that they believed would be a cutsy catch-phrase to boost ratings, without thinking of the consequences of their actions.  This is an all too common experience among media agencies today. They seem to be completely out of touch with the real world.  Statistics and demographic studies never tell the whole story.

I'm trying to remember the exact program where I saw these commercials, my daughter got me hooked on Ed, Edd and Eddy (Cartoon Network) and Spongebob Squarepants (Nickelodeon) so it might have been one of these, not sure.

The good news though is that since everyone has started writing to Nintendo, I haven't seen the commercial advertised in this area anymore where I was seeing it several times a day, so I'm wondering if they've pulled it?

~ Raven ~


----------



## phinz (Mar 25, 2006)

-DEADLY SUSHI- said:
			
		

> Your logic is flawed. We arest people that are drunk behind the wheel. Why? Because they are very likely to cause an accident. I understand where you are comming from. But logically it is not sound.


 
No, it's not. Your example isn't the same as the statement I made. We arrest people that are drunk behind the wheel because it is illegal to drink and drive. The law was passed because it is dangerous to drink and drive, but we did not arrest people for drinking and driving before the law was passed.

The effect of being arrested for DUI is predicated by the cause of the law disallowing driving while intoxicated, *not* by the fact that drinking and driving is dangerous. The effect of the law being passed was predicated by the determination that drinking and driving were dangerous. 

You can't arrest someone based on what they might do. You can arrest them for what they do if it is contrary to the law. If the law states you can't drink and drive, then you can be arrested. If the law does *not* state that you can't drink and drive, you can't be arrested legally. That's the difference. The logic is completely sound.


----------



## buckytom (Mar 25, 2006)

phinz said:
			
		

> You can't arrest someone based on what they might do.


 
you can if there's sufficient evidence that they are planning to commit a crime. but that is very tough to make stick.


----------



## phinz (Mar 25, 2006)

And that would only be based on a law that says that you can be arrested for what you are planning, not act of "might" do it.

If it's illegal to plan a bombing of a public place, you will be arrested for conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, or whatever law exists to make the planning illegal. The actual crime is the planning, or conspiracy to commit the acts, not the possibility that you might carry through with those acts. Those are two separate things. Making it illegal to "might do" is too close to having Thought Police for my comfort.


----------



## -DEADLY SUSHI- (Mar 25, 2006)

> No, it's not.


 
Yes..... it IS!!!


----------



## buckytom (Mar 25, 2006)

phinz, did you ever work for the clinton administration?

lol, slick phinz...


----------



## phinz (Mar 25, 2006)

Nah. I just wrote Op/Ed pieces for the newspaper. I also have spent a lot of time debating law, free speech, individual rights, et cetera. I'm a registered Libertarian and a firm believer in individual rights. My political views have changed over the years (I voted for Clinton twice and Bush once. I voted Libertarian last time) and I grow more and more distrustful of the "general public" and their own arbitrary morality compass as I see more and more people squalling about how their feelings were hurt or their sensibilities were offended.

The fact of the matter is, we cannot arrest people based on what they "might" do. We can only arrest them for what is illegal. It's not illegal to drink. We "might" get in the car and drive, though. Should we be pre-emptively arrested before we ever get in the car? No. We are only arrested when we do drink and drive, because the act of driving drunk is the illegal act, not the act of "might" kill somebody while driving drunk. If the act of "might" kill somebody while driving drunk was illegal we wouldn't have bars, convenience stores, restaurants with liquor licenses or package stores, because somebody "might" drink alcohol and drive.

Don't like the fact that advertising "might" influence children or "might" be taken in a negative manner? Great. Scream all you want. But don't be surprised, and don't protest, when somebody infringes on your life because they perceive that you "might" do something they find offensive/negative, though it may seem perfectly acceptable to you.

Again, to me, variety truly is the spice of life, and I love the variety I find here. I value everybody's opinion, no matter how misguided it might be.


----------



## GB (Mar 25, 2006)

phinz said:
			
		

> The fact of the matter is, we cannot arrest people based on what they "might" do. We can only arrest them for what is illegal. It's not illegal to drink. We "might" get in the car and drive, though. Should we be pre-emptively arrested before we ever get in the car? No. We are only arrested when we do drink and drive, because the act of driving drunk is the illegal act, not the act of "might" kill somebody while driving drunk.


Actually this is not true. Just this past week police arrested people in a hotel bar for being drunk because they might endanger peoples lives when the decided to leave the bar. I think this was in Texas, but I might be wrong about that. Now if you want to get technical they were arrested for being drunk in public which is a crime, but the reason the cops gave that that they _might _endanger the safety of others.


----------



## phinz (Mar 25, 2006)

If they go to the judge and say "We arrested them because they *might* have been a danger" it will get knocked down in court. If not, I'm willing to bet the ACLU will take up the case.

*BUT* you are saying that they were arrested for being drunk in public. They were arrested for something that is against the law. If that is the case, they were *not* arrested merely because they *might* be a danger. The police were just running their mouths. 

Yeah. I want to get technical, because in matters of law, technical is *very* important. It's what keeps tyrants at bay. This isn't an abolute monarchy where the king can hold you for no reason. If you are arrested you have to be arrested for suspicion of an actual crime.


----------



## buckytom (Mar 26, 2006)

phinz, we need to go hiking. there's nothing like a bunch of buddies, lots of beer and steaks, big fire, great music, dueling viewpoints on anything you can bring up. 

there's so many ways to argue both sides of any issue, and as in everything, a balance is the way. also, understanding that a democracy is a living breathing thing. it must be exercised, or it grows fat and slow. even cancerous.
but i do have to say that ya gotta have faith, in a democratic people, if nothing else. 
and it is important that people constantly are open to hearing as many viewpoints as they can stand.


----------



## phinz (Mar 28, 2006)

I'll buy the first round.


----------

