CBS “Frosty” ad riles critics
We read:
"A video advertisement on CBS’s Web site that ‘mashes’ material from the iconic Frosty the Snowman Christmastime cartoon with two of the network’s comedy series is offensive and should be pulled, media analysts told FoxNews.com.
The video ad, ‘Frosty the Inappropriate Snowman,’ takes authentic dialogue from CBS’ How I Met Your Mother and Two and a Half Men and dubs it on top of the cartoon classic, changing well-known ‘Frosty’ scenes to contain suggestions that the snowman and his friends visit a ’strip club.’
The mash-up also discusses Frosty’s ‘porn collection’ and contains repeated mentions of prior sexual conquests.”
Source
Bad taste -- so stop watching CBS. If enough do stop, that will get better results than any form of censorship.
24 comments:
Well said Jon. Actually, i'm surprised to see that anyone still watches cbs. It's amazing to see how long it takes some people to wake up.
Being used to South Park it does not offend me, although I can understand if it offends some people.
Oh, I forgot, in the 1980s there was a film called "Silent Night. Deadly Night." About a convict who escapes from a mental hospital and goes on a killing spree wearing a Santa Claus custume.
And if you like Tales from the Crypt, there is also a killing Santa Claus (except for kids) who axes to death an adulterous woman who murdered her husband.
The movie itself offended lots of people, but it was shown in theaters.
The title "Frosty the Inappropriate Snowman" was a warning in and of its self. It's satire, and with the commercialization of Christmas, one could hardly call it inappropriate.
If this had been televised on CBS as Frosty the Snowman, and I mean aired on TV not the website, then people could be up in arms.
Conservatives and Liberals alike have been lampooning each other for years, changing audio segments for satire. Check out Robot Chicken on Cartoon Network, they have been lampooning Christmas stories for years, and much worse was depicted...still funny and satire but in no way was it considered inappropriate.
Now, if we want to talk about inappropriate how about Dick Wolf's Law & Order: SVU describing O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh and the majority of conservatives as supporters of child killers. Now that's sick!
Now, if we want to talk about inappropriate how about Dick Wolf's Law & Order: SVU describing O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh and the majority of conservatives as supporters of child killers. Now that's sick!
Can't argue with the truth. O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh certainly are sick.
I am quite familiar with Reason. It uses sound arguments consisting of evidence, data, and valid logic to reach conclusions. You did not use any of these. I know The Voice of Reason well, and you, sir, are not it.
Well said Luke, but a waste of your time, as Leftists are only capable of sending, but not receiving.
I can't stop watch CBS, I already did that years ago.
It uses sound arguments consisting of evidence, data, and valid logic to reach conclusions.
Explain, using evidence, data, and logic that there is a God.
I've already linked to at least one book that does exactly that. Have you even read it? I've also tried to argue the point, and at least one of you "Anonymous" posters admitted to refusing to use logic in evaluating Christianity and insisted on using "standards" which would prevent historians from knowing anything at all about history. I'm perfectly willing to use logic and evidence in that evaluation. Are you?
If you actually care to look at the evidence, data and logic (somehow I doubt it) here are some good books:
There Is a God by Antony Flew. This is the shortest and simplest of the three books. For roughly 50 years, Antony Flew was the go to guy for arguments against the existence of God. This book describes why he rejected God's existence and the solid arguments which answered those objections well enough to change his mind.
I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist This book builds an argument from the ground up for Christianity being true. The authors do not rely on assumptions; instead building each step along the way on solid science and evidence.
The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. This is THE scholarly study on the existence of God based only on science and logic.
There are also a whole "Case For" series of books by Lee Strobel which examine the evidence for various aspects of Christianity. There's also a DVD of a debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens which occurred this past April on the topic "Does God Exist?"
Is that enough for you? Will you actually give the evidence and logic an honest evaluation?
A poster somewhere here said that conspiracy theorists start with a conclusion and try to build a case for it. Isn't that what these authors are doing, trying to justify Christian or religious belief; whereas science is supposed to examine the evidence or phenomena first and then draw a conclusion that may explain it, with the willingness to change the conclusion or hypothesis if other evidence contradicts it. Religion on the other hand never wants to change its dogma and will just look for other "evidence" to support it. - another anon
You did not explain if there is a God. You simply linked to a number of discredited references. FAIL. Try again.
"You did not explain if there is a God. You simply linked to a number of discredited references. FAIL. Try again."
You did not address the arguments presented in those books. Nor did you make an argument about why they were "discredited". In fact, check out this statement by an atheist apologist who reviewed The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology:
"Also, readers may be surprised to learn that the modal ontological argument has progressed a great deal since Plantinga. To my knowledge, atheists have yet to show what might be wrong with Robert Maydole's latest ontological argument, printed within."
Because of your obvious wave off without the slightest consideration, you've amply demonstrated that spending hundreds of hours restating all the evidence and arguments for the existence of God would be an absolute waste of time. I refuse to waste that time. After all, as another poster here observed:
"A poster somewhere here said that conspiracy theorists start with a conclusion and try to build a case for it. Isn't that what these authors are doing, trying to justify [atheism]; whereas science is supposed to examine the evidence or phenomena first and then draw a conclusion that may explain it, with the willingness to change the conclusion or hypothesis if other evidence contradicts it. [Atheism] on the other hand never wants to change its dogma and will just look for other "evidence" to support it."
Falling back on your a priori conclusions (metaphysical naturalism) is not the same thing as honestly evaluating evidence and arguments.
Where is YOUR argument? Where is YOUR evidence? You consistently refuse to provide ANY of YOUR own arguments and evidence.
Once again you're claiming an impossible standard. Every argument I could possibly make would depend almost entirely on work done by others. For example:
The nature of truth: Aristotle, etc.
Astrophysics: NASA, Stephen Hawking, Arno Penzia, Robert Wilson, etc.
Life: James D. Watson, Francis Crick, etc.
YOU cannot meet your own standard either. Can YOU make a reasonable argument than God does not exist without borrowing that argument or parts of it from someone else? No.
You cannot prove a negative of the type that God (or gods) do NOT exist. As has so often been said, it is the one making a positive claim, such as a god or gods exist, who must prove or demonstrate it. If that just relies on personal feeling, emotion, others' "authority", etc. it is not necessarily very convincing. Also it begs the definition of the "god", which can end up as just a narrow dispute. - another anon.
"You cannot prove a negative of the type that God (or gods) do NOT exist."
Absolutely correct. Yet I repeatedly see you guys arguing as if it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that God cannot exist. I was making two points by issuing that challenge:
1) It is impossible to prove that there is no god, therefore it is illegitimate to argue as if it has been proven.
2) That the previous Anon's claimed "standard" — that an argument is only valid if both the argument and the evidence originate with the person stating the argument — is also illegitimate because not even people who develop new arguments on anything can do so without relying on other peoples' work and data.
So to offer proof of Point 2 in a slightly different fashion, I challenge either of you to prove that the Roman Empire existed using the previous Anon's "standard": Your argument must be entirely original and it must not be based on evidence provided by anyone else.
"As has so often been said, it is the one making a positive claim, such as a god or gods exist, who must prove or demonstrate it. If that just relies on personal feeling, emotion, others' "authority", etc."
Also generally correct; though I take issue with your "authority" claim. There are both legitimate authorities and illegitimate authorities. For example, would you consider Stephen Hawking a legitimate authority on cosmology? Why or why not? How about on cooking the perfect soufflé? Why or why not?
That is why I don't rely on tell my personal experience when arguing that God exists. You can't verify it. I prefer to use standard methods (or referring to accepted experts) in areas such as physics, cosmology, biology, history, etc., because it is possible to verify those results.
However, the previous Anon (and I presume you, though I can't be sure because of the Anonymous tag) does not even examine evidence or use methods which the professionals consider to be valid methods. Because of that, I think it is safe to conclude for the previous Anon (and you?), no amount of evidence will ever be enough.
Given that the books presenting the evidence and arguments for God are there for your detailed examination any time you want to actually address the data, and that it appears that any time I would spend on this would be equivalent to dropping my work directly in a shredder, tell me why I SHOULD bother presenting anything further.
It boils down to whose "authority" you are prepared to accept or whose findings or arguments you are willing to accept or consider most convincing. When it concerns material matters like the sciences or historical research, it is perhaps easier to evaluate than nebulous things like theology. Why a person accepts another's views may not be very objective and probably says more about their own psychology - eg. there is a "religious mindset" and a "sceptic mindset".
Re "you guys", I can't speak for other people. - another anon.
Your argument, or as we have seen, the lack of one, is merely a bibliography. You make no assertions and back them up with attributed quotations. A pile of data does not an argument make. Have you ever written a research paper? It does not seem so.
"It boils down to whose "authority" you are prepared to accept or whose findings or arguments you are willing to accept or consider most convincing."
When arguing a case, my favorite sources are those which have a bias against the position I'm arguing. When even your enemies consider a certain fact to be true, then it's pretty hard to argue against that particular fact. (Though some "Anonymous" here has done exactly that by simply dismissing such facts out of hand as if their opinion mattered more than what the professionals say.)
When studying on my own, I pay attention to the fact that everyone has biases. The most reliable sources are those which are well aware of their own biases and take care to avoid allowing the biases to affect their work. In other words, they're intellectually honest. It's also reasonable to prefer honest sources who also have a good track record of doing solid, careful work.
"When it concerns material matters like the sciences or historical research, it is perhaps easier to evaluate than nebulous things like theology."
Yes, physical sciences are easier to check up on. However, even there, philosophical questions often get mixed in haphazardly and confused (sometimes deliberately so) with hard science. For example, the idea that scientific endeavors must only produce naturalistic answers and never supernatural answers is a philosophical position, not one which can be taken into a lab and tested.
Every religion and atheism all make truth claims. Some are about historical events, and some result in testable predictions. For example, the Biblical accounts of Jesus walking the earth, being crucified and rising from the dead is a historical claim. Therefore, it is appropriate to use techniques of historical research to examine that claim. (Note that in a thread from last week, another Anon claimed "standards of historical study" which would not allow anyone to know anything about history.)
There's more examples I could give, but simply put, some truth claims can be tested, some can't. Testing the testable claims is a good way to validate the reliability of that religion's/worldview's claims.
"Why a person accepts another's views may not be very objective and probably says more about their own psychology - eg. there is a "religious mindset" and a "sceptic mindset"."
Sadly, this appears to be all too true.
"Re "you guys", I can't speak for other people."
Sorry. I'm trying to be as precise as I can about who makes which arguments, but this overuse of "Anonymous" defies appropriate precision.
"Your argument, or as we have seen, the lack of one, is merely a bibliography."
You still have not shown WHY I should waste time on you when you have a track record of refusing to engage what arguments I did make.
It's clear that no amount of proof will ever be good enough for you. I know it. You know it. So man up, admit it and stop wasting my time.
You provide ZERO arguments, just piles of data. Either put up or shut up.
Still no WHY on wasting my time. To use your phrasing, put up or shut up.
Why? Because you enjoy it. You cannot stop yourself from replying to my comments. YOU are the one wasting your time on this blog. Are you going to waste your time replying to this?
Post a Comment