Disturbing tv commercials.

[Svengoolie 3]

Isee some people get outraged over idiotic,  meaningless  stuff, like that guy who wrote "rock n roll part 2" getting a lot of money for itcs use in "joker" while he's in prison for child rape for at least another decade or so. So what if Gary glitter makes money off a song he wrote ued in a movie? He's in prison and will likely  stay  there another decade and he's not young. He can't spend his money in orison.

But then I see things I think are pretty outrageous that no one seems to care about.

There are these cereal commercials that seem to be telling kids if something's really good itcs OK to just take it from the person who owns it. I saw a commercial a while ago for lucky charms with the kids intent on taking the leprechaun's  cereal.

I've seen cereal commercials with some bear taking cereal from a witch or something. Again,  it's good,  so itcs OK to just take it from someone who has it.

I remember some flintstone commercials with barney srealoing fred's cereal.

I know they're cartoon commercials and they're aimed at kids, but still I find it pretty objectionable to tell young,  impressionable kids itcs OK to just take something from someone it belongs to because it's  good .

Anyone else think this is a bad message for kids?

[Alex]

I would imagine the victims of Mr Gadd would disagree with you there sven. From posts, I've seen from you before though it doesn't surprise me that they would escape your notice, or how they might feel should any of them see this film and hear his music.

Generally, I find kids are smart enough to tell the difference between cartoons and reality (you will find the odd exception, but the vast majority) and learn from a variety of sources that such things as stealing are wrong. It tends to be (fairly stupid) adults who can't tell the difference. I grew up watching Looney Tunes cartoons and never once thought the things Tom & Jerry or the Roadrunner got up to would be a good idea to try in real life.

[Svengoolie 3]

See, the thing is his victims can probably sue him for damages and collect the monkey he gets paid for the use of his sons in the joker movie. I'm pretty sure in america thatcs what would happen. Gkittercs victims would sue him for damages and the courts would pretty much automatically rule in their favor, so hopefully in england he can be sued fo damages by his victims too and there goes every cent he makes from the joker.

He will likely neveseea cent of it even it he gets out of orison and can't spend it in orison.

Maybe I should have made that clearer, even so I found your little dig ast me annoying but not unexpected.

[Olivia Bauer]

Isee some people get outraged over idiotic,  meaningless stuff, like that guy who wrote "rock n roll part 2" getting a lot of money for itcs use in "joker" while he's in prison for child rape for at least another decade or so. So what if Gary glitter makes money off a song he wrote ued in a movie? He's in prison and will likely  stay  there another decade and he's not young. He can't spend his money in orison.

But then I see things I think are pretty outrageous that no one seems to care about.

There are these cereal commercials that seem to be telling kids if something's really good itcs OK to just take it from the person who owns it. I saw a commercial a while ago for lucky charms with the kids intent on taking the leprechaun's  cereal.

I've seen cereal commercials with some bear taking cereal from a witch or something. Again,  it's good,  so itcs OK to just take it from someone who has it.

I remember some flintstone commercials with barney srealoing fred's cereal.

I know they're cartoon commercials and they're aimed at kids, but still I find it pretty objectionable to tell young,  impressionable kids itcs OK to just take something from someone it belongs to because it's  good .

Anyone else think this is a bad message for kids?

See, the thing is his victims can probably sue him for damages and collect the monkey he gets paid for the use of his sons in the joker movie. I'm pretty sure in america thatcs what would happen. Gkittercs victims would sue him for damages and the courts would pretty much automatically rule in their favor, so hopefully in england he can be sued fo damages by his victims too and there goes every cent he makes from the joker.

He will likely neveseea cent of it even it he gets out of orison and can't spend it in orison.

Maybe I should have made that clearer, even so I found your little dig ast me annoying but not unexpected.

Rule 3.

[claws]

orison
/ˈɒrɪz(ə)n,ˈɒrɪs(ə)n/
noun archaic
noun: orison; plural noun: orisons

    a prayer.

Interesting.

[Olivia Bauer]

orison
/ˈɒrɪz(ə)n,ˈɒrɪs(ə)n/
noun archaic
noun: orison; plural noun: orisons

    a prayer.

Interesting.

"Collect the monkey" is my favorite Sven typo ever.

I want that engraved on a plaque.

[claws]

 

It is quite awesome.

[Gabriel Knight]

orison
/ˈɒrɪz(ə)n,ˈɒrɪs(ə)n/
noun archaic
noun: orison; plural noun: orisons

    a prayer.

Interesting.

"Collect the monkey" is my favorite Sven typo ever.

I want that engraved on a plaque.

[indianasmith]

"for the use of his sons in the joker movie" . . . hee hee hee!

[Trevor]

The "Dumb Animals" commercial from 1985 scared me: "It takes up to 40 dumb animals to make one fur coat but only one to wear it."

[ER]

When I was in college I woke up in the middle of the night after a night terror and turned on the TV for light and a certain normality, maybe, and it was in the middle of a commercial so weird that to this day I have to reassure myself I really did see it and wasn't lucid dreaming.

It was this not attractive middle-aged woman staring straight at me through the screen while the camera zoomed in closer and closer to her face, then her eyes, and her aggressive expression never changed and she never blinked while this disturbing music played and her upper face finally filled the screen as she talked about how she trusted the prices and service at a store I'd never heard of, and then when she got done the camera lingered on her face longer than it should have, and the entire thing gave me cold chills, like the close-up was pushing me at her like those haunted house rides that get your chair right up by a cackling witch.

And I never saw that commercial again!

[Alex]

Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on Today at 03:42:22
Isee some people get outraged over idiotic,  meaningless stuff, like that guy who wrote "rock n roll part 2" getting a lot of money for itcs use in "joker" while he's in prison for child rape for at least another decade or so. So what if Gary glitter makes money off a song he wrote ued in a movie? He's in prison and will likely  stay  there another decade and he's not young. He can't spend his money in orison.

But then I see things I think are pretty outrageous that no one seems to care about.

There are these cereal commercials that seem to be telling kids if something's really good itcs OK to just take it from the person who owns it. I saw a commercial a while ago for lucky charms with the kids intent on taking the leprechaun's  cereal.

I've seen cereal commercials with some bear taking cereal from a witch or something. Again,  it's good,  so itcs OK to just take it from someone who has it.

I remember some flintstone commercials with barney srealoing fred's cereal.

I know they're cartoon commercials and they're aimed at kids, but still I find it pretty objectionable to tell young,  impressionable kids itcs OK to just take something from someone it belongs to because it's  good .

Anyone else think this is a bad message for kids?

Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on Today at 06:24:56
See, the thing is his victims can probably sue him for damages and collect the monkey he gets paid for the use of his sons in the joker movie. I'm pretty sure in america thatcs what would happen. Gkittercs victims would sue him for damages and the courts would pretty much automatically rule in their favor, so hopefully in england he can be sued fo damages by his victims too and there goes every cent he makes from the joker.

He will likely neveseea cent of it even it he gets out of orison and can't spend it in orison.

Maybe I should have made that clearer, even so I found your little dig ast me annoying but not unexpected.

What makes you think someone in Malaysia has the money to launch a court case in the UK, or that they've even been able to identify all the victims? Do you know what kind of prison he is in because there are some where actually he would be able to spend his money. I don't know what the grade of the prison he is in, is rated so I can't say if he can or not.

From what I've seen of courts in the US they don't automatically rule in favour of people suing for this kind of thing. It takes years of protracted legal cases before these things get settled and going through something like that is incredibly painful for people to go through as it means reliving the abuse again and again. Depending on how he has his money set up it might not even be possible to take it from him. There are a lot of countries that if you stash your money in will keep it quite safe from the courts.

I do somewhat envy your rather nieve and uninformed view of the world. How nice it must be to think that things really are that simple.

Back to your blaming animated cartoons for encouraging bad behaviour, let me ask this. Do you go out and kill someone in real life because you've killed someone in a role-playing game?  Or because you've seen a violent movie, played a first-person shooter, listened to some music with lyrics that involve rebelling against the system?

And if my post annoyed you, then I'll sit with a smile on my face and take your negative karma and wear it proudly. Because if I am doing something that annoys you, then I know I am doing something good with the world.

[Alex]

Why thank you sven. I'll take that as meaning you don't have a decent reply.   

[Olivia Bauer]

HAHAHAHAHAHA! HE BOOED ME BECAUSE I POINTED OUT THAT HE'S BREAKING THE RULES!

[dean]

This one always got me:

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1