Do you find these billboards offensive?

Shenshen

smash wrote: »

I think it's hilarious that people consider defacing an advertisement as "nasty pro-choice behavior". Nasty my ass.

I somehow suspect it's the same people who protested the "There probably is no god" posters as offensive

Zulu

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Accuracy?

I see the point is lost on you. Again.

Do you perhaps not understand what the word always means?

I understand what it means. I've addressed the statement a number of times. Surely you remember? I said it was not a fact, remember?? I said it was probably true for some people, remember??? I said it could very well be a lie, remember????

Are you capable of arguing your point without creating false positions for other people? Without employing straw-men?

Daftendirekt

I haven't read the thread in it's entirety, so apologies if I'm repeating old points.

First off, I have to object to the pretty black and white attitude that an ad can only be either offensive or acceptable. I don't find the ad in question particularly offensive, but I do find it unsettling, objectionable and dishonest.

While I wouldn't deny anyone the right to voice their opinion on the subject of abortion (whether for or against), if you're going to take out an advertisement to promote that position, you should absolutely be expected to adhere to the same code of conduct that's expected of other advertisers. While I can't say for sure that this ad is in violation of any particular rules, it is offering unsolicited and inaccurate medical advice, and I'd be surprised if that was considered OK by the ASA.

In a way, this one is a lot more insidious than the grotesque abortion pictures that are so popular for this kind of campaign. While they can easily be dismissed as the work of lunatics, the idea that abortion is always damaging to a woman (emotionally or physically) is pretty prevalent, and often isn't challenged. This is an obvious attempt to cash in on that fear.

Though I guess you could say the fact that they've moved from trying to garner sympathy for the foetus to trying to garner sympathy for the woman carrying the foetus is progress in a weird way.

robp

Shenshen wrote: »

I somehow suspect it's the same people who protested the "There probably is no god" posters as offensive

Actually no I have a lot better things to do with my time than finding offensive in everyday opinions. On the other hand defacing a billboard is usually illegal and always childish.

Sure..isn't labeling those whose who disagree with you a handy way to silence criticism?

OldNotWIse

smash wrote: »

I think it's hilarious that people consider defacing an advertisement as "nasty pro-choice behavior". Nasty my ass.

What would you call it? Incidentally, lest there be any confusion, I did not refer to it as nasty, I simply dont agree with you that childish tactics on one side can be somehow used as a justification for childish tactics on the other side. A criminal does not go to court and say "oooh look at what they other guy did, his crime is far worse, therefore I am in the right".

smash

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What would you call it? Incidentally, lest there be any confusion, I did not refer to it as nasty, I simply dont agree with you that childish tactics on one side can be somehow used as a justification for childish tactics on the other side. A criminal does not go to court and say "oooh look at what they other guy did, his crime is far worse, therefore I am in the right".

Well I see petty vandalism in a completely different light to what can only be described as force viewed gore. One slightly hurts an advertising agencies pocket, the other can seriously affect someone's mental health. Can you see that?

robp

smash wrote: »

the other can seriously affect someone's mental health. Can you see that?

I sincerely doubt that you can back up this claim with evidence. Can you? For the record though I don't agree with gory abortion pictures and I am pro-life. Some major pro-life organisations do not use any gory pictures whatsoever.

smash

robp wrote: »

smash wrote: »

the other can seriously affect someone's mental health. Can you see that?

I sincerely doubt that you can back up this claim with evidence. Can you?

well I know from personal experience that it terrified my son.

xsiborg

robp wrote: »

smash wrote: »

the other can seriously affect someone's mental health. Can you see that?

I sincerely doubt that you can back up this claim with evidence. Can you? For the record though I don't agree with gory abortion pictures and I am pro-life. Some major pro-life organisations do not use any gory pictures whatsoever.

i posted it earlier in the thread but how many years ago now has it been since the last referendum on abortion? and i can still recall those pictures i saw on these posters as clear as fúcking day in my mind.

i wouldnt so much say it affected MY mental health personally, but it did and still does leave me deeply disturbed. they were certainly images that stay with you. did they do anything to change my opinion that a woman should have a right to an abortion should she choose to do so? not in the slightest. all they did was disgust me.

H2UMrsRobinson

Why do people keep putting offended in "..."

It's a genuine word with a genuine definition and it appears to have become fashionable to belittle it's use lately thanks to Stephen Fry and Steve Hughes...!

Offend - to irritate, annoy, or anger; cause resentful displeasure in:

Seems a genuine enough emotion to me.

Yes I do experience an emotion, similar to offended, at these posters. They are a very public display aimed at a very small target audience. They appear to have nothing to do with helping women and a whole lot of head-up-their-own-arsery for the organisation using them.

robp

H2UMrsRobinson wrote: »

They are a very public display aimed at a very small target audience. They appear to have nothing to do with helping women

What They are aimed at the 50 odd % of the population who are swing supporters of legal abortions. A referendum is not on the cards but legislation may well be. Actual women with unplanned pregancies are advised to seek counsel with professionals not billboards.

whole lot of head-up-their-own-arsery for the organisation using them.

Speechless.

finty

H2UMrsRobinson wrote: »

Why do people keep putting offended in "..."

It's a genuine word with a genuine definition and it appears to have become fashionable to belittle it's use lately thanks to Stephen Fry and Steve Hughes...!

Offend - to irritate, annoy, or anger; cause resentful displeasure in:

Seems a genuine enough emotion to me.

Yes I do experience an emotion, similar to offended, at these posters. They are a very public display aimed at a very small target audience. They appear to have nothing to do with helping women and a whole lot of head-up-their-own-arsery for the organisation using them.

The problem people have with the use of the term "Im offended by....." is that its used as a none too subtle form of censorship.

Let people express their opinion, if that opinion is off the wall then say that.

But this thread started off by the OP saying the poster offended her and thus she complained about it.

finty

GarIT wrote: »

Thats exactly what it should be, nobody should be allowed advertise a statment as fact when it is clearly false.

Youth Defence have made a statement of their opinion.

Nothing more!!!!


Unless you want to read something into it so you can get offended and try and censor an alternate view you dont agree with.

H2UMrsRobinson

robp wrote: »

What They are aimed at the 50 odd % of the population who are swing supporters of legal abortions. A referendum is not on the cards but legislation may well be. Actual women with unplanned pregancies are advised to seek counsel with professionals not billboards.



Speechless.

From your previous posts it's clear which side of the fence you sit on this. You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. Clearly you are not speechless on this issue - very vocal in fact.

I just don't think these billboards are helpful at all. Are you now saying that they are political propaganda for future referendums and legislation? That is even more offensive !!!

Morag

LisaLee wrote: »

That's it though, I know there is going to be pamphlets and campaigns from both sides, but I'm not as worried about that. What I find offensive is the wording and the fact that this sort of emotionally charged content is emblazoned all around Dublin on large billboards and on public transport.

I wonder if the pro choice groups will be allowed rent out large advertising spaces to promote their argument and agenda?

They are spending 250,000 euro on the advertising.
I saw the leaflets in a church this weekend, the signs on bill boards and soon they will be on buses, trams and trains.


Most of the money for this comes from outside of the country, typically the USA.


The pro choice side does not have that sort of money to go toe to toe with the spend that Youth Defense (and it's sister orgs) have. The pro choice side is a patch work of groups who've come together under the "Action on X" banner. https://www.facebook.com/actiononx2012

If you are pro choice and want to try and re dress this massive imbalance then get involved.

As for the posters, they don't fall under the remit of the Advertiment authority as they are not for goods or services.


http://www.asai.ie/complain.asp

RE: Youth Defence Campaign
The primary objective of the ASAI Code of Standards for Advertising, Promotional and Direct Marketing is the regulation of commercial marketing communications in the interest of consumers.

Marketing communications that do not have a commercial element and which whose principal purpose is to express the advertiser's position on a political, religious, industrial relations, social or aesthetic matter or on an issue of public interest or concern do not come within the remit of the Code.

We have received a number of complaints about the current Youth Defence campaign. However, as this advertising does not have a commercial element (e.g. a fundraising element) and is expressing the advertiser’s position on an issue of public interest, it is outside the remit of the Code.

We are therefore unable to investigate complaints about this campaign.

The posters are very clever, and don't fall under the remit of being political or seeking to change government policy.

The Radiator

You're too sensitive, OP

People who get offended, should be offended imo

robp

Sharrow wrote: »

The pro choice side does not have that sort of money to go toe to toe with the spend that Youth Defense (and it's sister orgs) have. The pro choice side is a patch work of groups who've come together under the "Action on X" banner. https://www.facebook.com/actiononx2012

http://www.asai.ie/complain.asp

That is a very questionable claim. Admittedly exact figures are not in public circulation but it is clear that the Irish pro-choice lobby has extremely wealthy backers, billionaires even E.G. George Soros and Chuck Feeney, and from multinationals like Microsoft and Goldman Sachs. You won't find many billionaires lavishing Youth Defense with money.

sbsquarepants

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Tbh I dont think anyone on here needs you to specify that "pro-lifers are dicks" is an opinion as opposed to a fact... what a low opinion of other posters you must have!

Putting something in quotes, is to imply that's what was said verbatim, ie it is a quote. Go back over my quotes and find were i said that.
What i actually said was....

My opinion is that, in the case of this billboard, the person or persons behind it are, in this particular instance being dicks. No more and no less

It's a subtle difference, but an important one, like there MAY BE a better answer, and there's ALWAYS a better answer.

Zulu wrote: »

I see the point is lost on you. Again.

I understand what it means. I've addressed the statement a number of times. Surely you remember? I said it was not a fact, remember?? I said it was probably true for some people, remember??? I said it could very well be a lie, remember????

Are you capable of arguing your point without creating false positions for other people? Without employing straw-men?

Ad-homs, straw men, throw in godwin and you'll have completed the holy trinity of internet waffle.
It's still nonsense though. The add is presented as a statement of fact, not an opinion. The big highlighted ALWAYS being the important part that you are again ignoring. "Could very well be a lie" again, lacking in accuracy - a recurring theme it seems - it IS a lie. We're going around in circles here.

BeerSteakBirds

I am offended by the fact that people will kill about whether a ''potential'' child is nurtured in the womb but once they leave the womb as an ''actual'' child (which nobody can dispute on any level of argument) they are basically on their own in a world where they are not valued.

Zulu

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Ad-homs, straw men, throw in godwin and you'll have completed the holy trinity of internet waffle.

...and you'll have committed all three blatant signs of a blatantly failed argument.

But hey - you don't even need a reason to be offended, so don't sweat the fact that your argument has more holes than a collender riddled by machine gun fire.

Lux23

They were handing out leaflets today, it's years since I had seen one of those freaks on the street.

Morag

robp wrote: »

That is a very questionable claim. Admittedly exact figures are not in public circulation but it is clear that the Irish pro-choice lobby has extremely wealthy backers, billionaires even E.G. George Soros and Chuck Feeney, and from multinationals like Microsoft and Goldman Sachs. You won't find many billionaires lavishing Youth Defense with money.

Yes that is a fund for social change via the legal system.

Again that is separate from the action on X campaign and there is a huge difference between the money which is being spent on the campagains.

Human Life International is the pro life catholic organization which funds 'Life House' on Capel st were youth defense is based and their 1/4 of a million advertising campaign.

They are really worried that people now understand the need for abortion under certain circumstances and have the compassion to see sending women out of the country is not the answer.

They want to pull out all the stops and make abortion a taboo subject again and to dishearten all of us who lived through the last refernda on this topic.
It is going to get nasty.

sbsquarepants

Zulu wrote: »

...and you'll have committed all three blatant signs of a blatantly failed argument.

But hey - you don't even need a reason to be offended, so don't sweat the fact that your argument has more holes than a collender riddled by machine gun fire.

As i've said, we're going in cirlcles. We're better off just aggreeing to differ.
I do like your collander analogy though - it's very visual!:D

OldNotWIse

smash wrote: »

Well I see petty vandalism in a completely different light to what can only be described as force viewed gore. One slightly hurts an advertising agencies pocket, the other can seriously affect someone's mental health. Can you see that?

Seriously affect ones mental health? Really? You clearly know nothing about mental health if you think a couple of gruesome photographs can "seriously affect" it. As someone living with a parent with long term severe depression, perhaps I should take offence at your flippant attitude that implies that mental illness can be brought about by looking at a poster. Sure we're all at it...

Incidentally would now be a good time to question if ye'r all incapable of looking like....away from something you dont like? Is anybody forcing you to stare, unblinking at these posters or pictures for thirty seconds at a time or something? Does the existance of these posters force you to have a different opinion? Or negate your right to fund and promote your own agenda?? I see things I dont like every day (and things that would get to me a lot more than someone who dares to have a different opinion). I dont force myself to stare at whatever it is and then come onto a public forum and yammer on about it. Certainly, if I were to see a poster that promoted access to abortion I would dismiss it...and move on, with enough strength in my own beliefs to know that they are not so weak that I need to become hysterical every time someone dares to present a different view.

xsiborg wrote: »

i posted it earlier in the thread but how many years ago now has it been since the last referendum on abortion? and i can still recall those pictures i saw on these posters as clear as fúcking day in my mind.

i wouldnt so much say it affected MY mental health personally, but it did and still does leave me deeply disturbed. they were certainly images that stay with you. did they do anything to change my opinion that a woman should have a right to an abortion should she choose to do so? not in the slightest. all they did was disgust me.

The other side of that coin is that I too remember seeing these posters - and they DID help shape my opinion on abortion (or they certainly cemented an already nearly made up mind)

H2UMrsRobinson wrote: »

Why do people keep putting offended in "..."

It's a genuine word with a genuine definition and it appears to have become fashionable to belittle it's use lately thanks to Stephen Fry and Steve Hughes...!

Offend - to irritate, annoy, or anger; cause resentful displeasure in:

Seems a genuine enough emotion to me.

Yes I do experience an emotion, similar to offended, at these posters. They are a very public display aimed at a very small target audience. They appear to have nothing to do with helping women and a whole lot of head-up-their-own-arsery for the organisation using them.

Lux23 wrote: »

They were handing out leaflets today, it's years since I had seen one of those freaks on the street.

See...insults like this dont make you look cool, they dont do anything for your cause and they certainly dont gain you any respect. They simply make your argument look weak that you have to resort to name-calling in order to substantiate your views.

jhegarty

Lux23 wrote: »

They were handing out leaflets today, it's years since I had seen one of those freaks on the street.

You don't do yourself , or your side of the argument any service with a post like that.

I feel sorry for you that you feel the need to call someone a freak because they have different views to you.

Morag

jhegarty wrote: »

You don't do yourself , or your side of the argument any service with a post like that.

I feel sorry for you that you feel the need to call someone a freak because they have different views to you.

I don't think that it's that they have a different opinion I think it is more the fact that they are choosing to preach at people and push leaflets at them espousing their opinion.

sbsquarepants

jhegarty wrote: »

You don't do yourself , or your side of the argument any service with a post like that.

I feel sorry for you that you feel the need to call someone a freak because they have different views to you.

I think it's more to do with how they express those views, those posters they parade around town are pretty tasteless.

Sharrow wrote: »

I don't think that it's that they have a different opinion I think it is more the fact that they are choosing to preach at people and push leaflets at them espousing their opinion.

Every time i see them i'm reminded of the Phelps over in America. I actually find it hard not to feel a little bit sorry for them, but i usually just lie down till the feeling passes, then i just think get a fúcking life of your own will you and leave people alone.

Zulu

I admire them.

I don't agree with the pictures of dead babies, but to be fair to them, they are out there fighting for what they believe. In their eyes, children are being killed, and they are prepared to put their money where their mouths are; they're prepared to get out there and try and do something about it.

Fair dues for that at least.

Morag

Zulu wrote: »

I don't agree with the pictures of dead babies, but to be fair to them, they are out there fighting for what they believe. In their eyes, children are being killed, and they are prepared to put their money where their mouths are; they're prepared to get out there and try and do something about it.

Fair dues for that at least.

I would have more respect for them if they did always do that in a peaceful manner and if they respected those who don't agree with them.

It is hard to promote the other point of view when you have abuse screamed in your face.

Zulu

Sharrow wrote: »

It is hard to promote the other point of view when you have abuse screamed in your face.

I think you and I both know that applies to a small minority.

Minority extremists exist on both sides. Both are equally bad. To discredit the majority due to the minority is prejudice.