Tim Tebow to deliver anti-abortion message during SB (1 Viewer)

[JamesTheScot]

Let me clear it up for you both as best I can. Unborn life is innocent, defenseless life. The life of a murderer is not innocent life and most adults are capable of making choices or taking action to prolong and preserve their own life. If your actions cause your own death, I have less pity for you than I do an unborn child who does not and cannot act to cause their own death...or take measures to prevent it. You need not agree with that distinction having merit, but it is a real and actual disctinction nonethless. And please consider that our society makes these types of distinctions all the time. Consider children, the infirm of mind, and criminals.

I value freedom to come as go as I please, to vote, to own firearms, etc. Must I also then oppose the jailing of violent felons and the revocation of their right to vote and own firearms because I value freedom? Of course not. Actions have consequences. Is jail or fines a deterrant? No more so than the death penalty. Crime continues to occur.

By the same measure, I am A-OK with protecting children, the old and the mentally handicapped from exploitation and harm that they cannot prevent to themselves. We do this by limiting their ability to enter in contracts and engage in risky behavior which they may not fully be capable of evaluating. We do so because we recognize that they are defenseless in that regard. So we manufacture a defensive scheme to protect them (no drinking under 21, for example) and we punish those take advantage of their naivete (statutory rape, for example).

So, with respect, no, not all lives are equal in their rights in our society.

I approve of the death penalty in the abstract but I do question whether or not innocent people are subjected to it. So I cannot say I am pro or anti, I'm still coming to terms with it. The thought of executing an innocent is abhorrent to me.

As for serious contradictions...how about those that oppose the death penalty, even for the truly guilty, yet support abortion? Let's save the murderers. The unborn? Meh.

Enjoying the dscussion, though.

The question is not: Does a child = a murderer? The question is: Is life sacred? And apparently the answer is "Not if we can satisfy our need for vengeance." (call it justice if you must).That's all the death penalty is, vengeance. It's not a deterrent it's only more death.

I am not sure if you are a Christian man James, and I know some Christian people try to defend the opposite of my next statement, but I am pretty sure that Jesus would not support killing in the name of vengeance. And the Pope agrees. I have done my research on this so you don't need to site chapter and verse to show how he may have thought otherwise, I know much of the opposing viewpoint. This is another one of those debates, like abortion, that will not allow for a consensus to be met.

Im not a fan of the death penalty really but Im pretty sure God wiped out nations for their sins. Kind of sounds like the death penalty. I believe God has no problem with a death penalty, but maybe the issue is that its no ones decision besides God's who lives and who dies. That goes for in and outside the womb.And on the contrary, there are people who are pro-choice who arent for euthenasia or assisted suicide. People think its ok for a mother to decide death for their baby at the beginning of their life, before they even have a chance. But yet, someone who has lived a full life cant even make that decision for their own life. Doesnt make any sense. People say let life run its course and it should go both ways.

Old Testament G-D is all about vengeance and fire and brimstone but that is not the God of the New Testament. The Old Testament G-D is not the God preached by Jesus.

This is directly refuted by the teachings of Jesus. He was born on this Earth as a Jew and was raised in the synagogues. To assert that he taught about a different God than the God of the old testament Jews is just flat out wrong.Of course, Jesus taught about God as a real entity. You can only come to your conclusion if you do not agree with Jesus that God is a real entity and merely approach the Bible as collected writings of a sincere but nonetheless misguided faith.

 

[Chaka]

We all understand (or most of us here do) that there is more to the commercial than the basic notion that "Your unborn child is the next Tim Tebow" but that does not mean it isn't the message they are pushing. And I question how many people will truly see any deeper than the surface message.

I think you are way off base with this post.First, if they are sending a message that most of us here can understand, why would you then presume that they are pushing that message because they think it will be misunderstood by others?

Second, you are being pretty elitist with the red statement. It really takes on an "I'm smart enough but many people are too stupid to understand it" feel. Interestingly enough, those same people that you think are too stupid to understand that the odds are slim that their unborn child will be the next Tebow are nonetheless smart enough to make the call on whether or not to abort. Why don't YOU make that more important decision for them since they obviously can't be trusted to handle the simple matter of applying rational thought to a 30 second television ad.

Multiple polls here have indicated that the average education level on these forums is higher than national averages. They could be lying but I am not going to track down 30,000+ users to check the veracity of their claims (then again with aliases there are probably only 7 unique visitors here so maybe I should try).I never called anyone stupid and I never said that most people would not understand more than the surface message I questioned how many would. And it does not mean that they are incapable of seeing deeper (though some are) I think many people simply won't take the time think about it.

I would never presume to make the choice to keep or abort a fetus for another person.

My comment can be seen as more than a tad elitist, and I won't deny it. I also won't insult everyone's intelligence by assuming that everyone is intellectually equal just because we want it to be that way.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

[wacky comments]

 

[Chaka]

Let me clear it up for you both as best I can. Unborn life is innocent, defenseless life. The life of a murderer is not innocent life and most adults are capable of making choices or taking action to prolong and preserve their own life. If your actions cause your own death, I have less pity for you than I do an unborn child who does not and cannot act to cause their own death...or take measures to prevent it. You need not agree with that distinction having merit, but it is a real and actual disctinction nonethless. And please consider that our society makes these types of distinctions all the time. Consider children, the infirm of mind, and criminals. I value freedom to come as go as I please, to vote, to own firearms, etc. Must I also then oppose the jailing of violent felons and the revocation of their right to vote and own firearms because I value freedom? Of course not. Actions have consequences. Is jail or fines a deterrant? No more so than the death penalty. Crime continues to occur.By the same measure, I am A-OK with protecting children, the old and the mentally handicapped from exploitation and harm that they cannot prevent to themselves. We do this by limiting their ability to enter in contracts and engage in risky behavior which they may not fully be capable of evaluating. We do so because we recognize that they are defenseless in that regard. So we manufacture a defensive scheme to protect them (no drinking under 21, for example) and we punish those take advantage of their naivete (statutory rape, for example). So, with respect, no, not all lives are equal in their rights in our society.I approve of the death penalty in the abstract but I do question whether or not innocent people are subjected to it. So I cannot say I am pro or anti, I'm still coming to terms with it. The thought of executing an innocent is abhorrent to me. As for serious contradictions...how about those that oppose the death penalty, even for the truly guilty, yet support abortion? Let's save the murderers. The unborn? Meh.Enjoying the dscussion, though.

The question is not: Does a child = a murderer? The question is: Is life sacred? And apparently the answer is "Not if we can satisfy our need for vengeance." (call it justice if you must).That's all the death penalty is, vengeance. It's not a deterrent it's only more death.I am not sure if you are a Christian man James, and I know some Christian people try to defend the opposite of my next statement, but I am pretty sure that Jesus would not support killing in the name of vengeance. And the Pope agrees. I have done my research on this so you don't need to site chapter and verse to show how he may have thought otherwise, I know much of the opposing viewpoint. This is another one of those debates, like abortion, that will not allow for a consensus to be met.

I reject your premise that justice = vengence or that they are interchangeable. Given that foundational disagreement, I think you can see how I take issue with the rest of your post. Suffice it to say, Jesus spoke about the heart of the individual Christian and actually spoke very little on secular government and social institutions like, say, slavery. But I have no problem with a Christian (or anyone else) taking an anti-death penalty position from a "life is sacred" perspective.

My premise is not that justice = vengeance my premise is that many choose to call vengeance justice.How do you feel about those who accept Christ's teachings and support the death penalty?

 

[Chaka]

Let me clear it up for you both as best I can. Unborn life is innocent, defenseless life. The life of a murderer is not innocent life and most adults are capable of making choices or taking action to prolong and preserve their own life. If your actions cause your own death, I have less pity for you than I do an unborn child who does not and cannot act to cause their own death...or take measures to prevent it. You need not agree with that distinction having merit, but it is a real and actual disctinction nonethless. And please consider that our society makes these types of distinctions all the time. Consider children, the infirm of mind, and criminals.

I value freedom to come as go as I please, to vote, to own firearms, etc. Must I also then oppose the jailing of violent felons and the revocation of their right to vote and own firearms because I value freedom? Of course not. Actions have consequences. Is jail or fines a deterrant? No more so than the death penalty. Crime continues to occur.

By the same measure, I am A-OK with protecting children, the old and the mentally handicapped from exploitation and harm that they cannot prevent to themselves. We do this by limiting their ability to enter in contracts and engage in risky behavior which they may not fully be capable of evaluating. We do so because we recognize that they are defenseless in that regard. So we manufacture a defensive scheme to protect them (no drinking under 21, for example) and we punish those take advantage of their naivete (statutory rape, for example).

So, with respect, no, not all lives are equal in their rights in our society.

I approve of the death penalty in the abstract but I do question whether or not innocent people are subjected to it. So I cannot say I am pro or anti, I'm still coming to terms with it. The thought of executing an innocent is abhorrent to me.

As for serious contradictions...how about those that oppose the death penalty, even for the truly guilty, yet support abortion? Let's save the murderers. The unborn? Meh.

Enjoying the dscussion, though.

The question is not: Does a child = a murderer? The question is: Is life sacred? And apparently the answer is "Not if we can satisfy our need for vengeance." (call it justice if you must).That's all the death penalty is, vengeance. It's not a deterrent it's only more death.

I am not sure if you are a Christian man James, and I know some Christian people try to defend the opposite of my next statement, but I am pretty sure that Jesus would not support killing in the name of vengeance. And the Pope agrees. I have done my research on this so you don't need to site chapter and verse to show how he may have thought otherwise, I know much of the opposing viewpoint. This is another one of those debates, like abortion, that will not allow for a consensus to be met.

Im not a fan of the death penalty really but Im pretty sure God wiped out nations for their sins. Kind of sounds like the death penalty. I believe God has no problem with a death penalty, but maybe the issue is that its no ones decision besides God's who lives and who dies. That goes for in and outside the womb.And on the contrary, there are people who are pro-choice who arent for euthenasia or assisted suicide. People think its ok for a mother to decide death for their baby at the beginning of their life, before they even have a chance. But yet, someone who has lived a full life cant even make that decision for their own life. Doesnt make any sense. People say let life run its course and it should go both ways.

Old Testament G-D is all about vengeance and fire and brimstone but that is not the God of the New Testament. The Old Testament G-D is not the God preached by Jesus.

This is directly refuted by the teachings of Jesus. He was born on this Earth as a Jew and was raised in the synagogues. To assert that he taught about a different God than the God of the old testament Jews is just flat out wrong.Of course, Jesus taught about God as a real entity. You can only come to your conclusion if you do not agree with Jesus that God is a real entity and merely approach the Bible as collected writings of a sincere but nonetheless misguided faith.

I am not saying there are two separate and distinct Gods I am saying that the message taught in the NT is not the same message taught in the OT. Jesus was a Jew but if that was the beginning and end of it Christians would be still be wearing kippas and observing the 613 mitzvot.Jesus fulfilled the law and forever changed the observances, practices and how God is viewed and worshiped.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Let me clear it up for you both as best I can. Unborn life is innocent, defenseless life. The life of a murderer is not innocent life and most adults are capable of making choices or taking action to prolong and preserve their own life. If your actions cause your own death, I have less pity for you than I do an unborn child who does not and cannot act to cause their own death...or take measures to prevent it. You need not agree with that distinction having merit, but it is a real and actual disctinction nonethless. And please consider that our society makes these types of distinctions all the time. Consider children, the infirm of mind, and criminals. I value freedom to come as go as I please, to vote, to own firearms, etc. Must I also then oppose the jailing of violent felons and the revocation of their right to vote and own firearms because I value freedom? Of course not. Actions have consequences. Is jail or fines a deterrant? No more so than the death penalty. Crime continues to occur.By the same measure, I am A-OK with protecting children, the old and the mentally handicapped from exploitation and harm that they cannot prevent to themselves. We do this by limiting their ability to enter in contracts and engage in risky behavior which they may not fully be capable of evaluating. We do so because we recognize that they are defenseless in that regard. So we manufacture a defensive scheme to protect them (no drinking under 21, for example) and we punish those take advantage of their naivete (statutory rape, for example). So, with respect, no, not all lives are equal in their rights in our society.I approve of the death penalty in the abstract but I do question whether or not innocent people are subjected to it. So I cannot say I am pro or anti, I'm still coming to terms with it. The thought of executing an innocent is abhorrent to me. As for serious contradictions...how about those that oppose the death penalty, even for the truly guilty, yet support abortion? Let's save the murderers. The unborn? Meh.Enjoying the dscussion, though.

The question is not: Does a child = a murderer? The question is: Is life sacred? And apparently the answer is "Not if we can satisfy our need for vengeance." (call it justice if you must).That's all the death penalty is, vengeance. It's not a deterrent it's only more death.I am not sure if you are a Christian man James, and I know some Christian people try to defend the opposite of my next statement, but I am pretty sure that Jesus would not support killing in the name of vengeance. And the Pope agrees. I have done my research on this so you don't need to site chapter and verse to show how he may have thought otherwise, I know much of the opposing viewpoint. This is another one of those debates, like abortion, that will not allow for a consensus to be met.

I reject your premise that justice = vengence or that they are interchangeable. Given that foundational disagreement, I think you can see how I take issue with the rest of your post. Suffice it to say, Jesus spoke about the heart of the individual Christian and actually spoke very little on secular government and social institutions like, say, slavery. But I have no problem with a Christian (or anyone else) taking an anti-death penalty position from a "life is sacred" perspective.

My premise is not that justice = vengeance my premise is that many choose to call vengeance justice.How do you feel about those who accept Christ's teachings and support the death penalty?

I presume that God gave the death penalty to the Jews, that Jesus was an observant Jew, and He did not say that the death penalty was abolished for those trangressions so identified in the Old Testament. So I believe a Christian can be pro death penalty and still be within the Faith.Interestingly though, if we did follow that example and apply it universally, we would also not jail people for beaking the law either as Jesus told the woman to go (free) and sin no more instead of opting for a life sentence over death. And I've never run across another Christian who was anti-jail.

 

[Chaka]

I presume that God gave the death penalty to the Jews, that Jesus was an observant Jew, and He did not say that the death penalty was abolished for those trangressions so identified in the Old Testament. So I believe a Christian can be pro death penalty and still be within the Faith.Interestingly though, if we did follow that example and apply it universally, we would also not jail people for beaking the law either as Jesus told the woman to go (free) and sin no more instead of opting for a life sentence over death. And I've never run across another Christian who was anti-jail.

People of all faiths use their divinely inspired literature to justify all manner of things.I question whether Jesus would have participated in a stoning under any circumstances. He was pretty forgiving of prostitutes and those who crucified innocent men.I know the teachings say that everyone will be judged in the next life but I can't recall Jesus ever saying "Let's hasten their arrival to the next life."It is an interesting question for philosophers and scholars and people who assume the name of television neanderthals and post on internet message boards to ponder.

 

[IDrinkyourMilkshake]

That was it?

I think we all feel a little silly right now.

 

[ang12]

That was it? I think we all feel a little silly right now.

Were people expecting him to pull out a coathanger or something?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

My that was so controversial. There should be a law against that.

 

[SSOG]

Tebow just alienated half of his fanbase. Nobody wants to root for someone whose mother still worries about him.

 

[SSOG]

I think we all feel a little silly right now.

Why on earth would anyone feel silly about forming an opinion on a subject without bothering to get all the facts first? Isn't that what being an American is all about?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

If I hadn't read about it on here I wouldn't even have known that was a pro-life ad.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I hope all the people who supported this awful ad are ashamed of yourselves.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

That was it? I think we all feel a little silly right now.

I'm actually disappointed. I don't support their position but I thought they'd express it a bit more directly. That was milquetoast.

 

[trader jake]

That was it?

 

[az_prof]

Let me clear it up for you both as best I can. Unborn life is innocent, defenseless life. The life of a murderer is not innocent life and most adults are capable of making choices or taking action to prolong and preserve their own life. If your actions cause your own death, I have less pity for you than I do an unborn child who does not and cannot act to cause their own death...or take measures to prevent it. You need not agree with that distinction having merit, but it is a real and actual disctinction nonethless. And please consider that our society makes these types of distinctions all the time. Consider children, the infirm of mind, and criminals. I value freedom to come as go as I please, to vote, to own firearms, etc. Must I also then oppose the jailing of violent felons and the revocation of their right to vote and own firearms because I value freedom? Of course not. Actions have consequences. Is jail or fines a deterrant? No more so than the death penalty. Crime continues to occur.By the same measure, I am A-OK with protecting children, the old and the mentally handicapped from exploitation and harm that they cannot prevent to themselves. We do this by limiting their ability to enter in contracts and engage in risky behavior which they may not fully be capable of evaluating. We do so because we recognize that they are defenseless in that regard. So we manufacture a defensive scheme to protect them (no drinking under 21, for example) and we punish those take advantage of their naivete (statutory rape, for example). So, with respect, no, not all lives are equal in their rights in our society.I approve of the death penalty in the abstract but I do question whether or not innocent people are subjected to it. So I cannot say I am pro or anti, I'm still coming to terms with it. The thought of executing an innocent is abhorrent to me. As for serious contradictions...how about those that oppose the death penalty, even for the truly guilty, yet support abortion? Let's save the murderers. The unborn? Meh.Enjoying the dscussion, though.

The question is not: Does a child = a murderer? The question is: Is life sacred? And apparently the answer is "Not if we can satisfy our need for vengeance." (call it justice if you must).That's all the death penalty is, vengeance. It's not a deterrent it's only more death.I am not sure if you are a Christian man James, and I know some Christian people try to defend the opposite of my next statement, but I am pretty sure that Jesus would not support killing in the name of vengeance. And the Pope agrees. I have done my research on this so you don't need to site chapter and verse to show how he may have thought otherwise, I know much of the opposing viewpoint. This is another one of those debates, like abortion, that will not allow for a consensus to be met.

I reject your premise that justice = vengence or that they are interchangeable. Given that foundational disagreement, I think you can see how I take issue with the rest of your post. Suffice it to say, Jesus spoke about the heart of the individual Christian and actually spoke very little on secular government and social institutions like, say, slavery. But I have no problem with a Christian (or anyone else) taking an anti-death penalty position from a "life is sacred" perspective.

My premise is not that justice = vengeance my premise is that many choose to call vengeance justice.How do you feel about those who accept Christ's teachings and support the death penalty?

I presume that God gave the death penalty to the Jews, that Jesus was an observant Jew, and He did not say that the death penalty was abolished for those trangressions so identified in the Old Testament. So I believe a Christian can be pro death penalty and still be within the Faith.Interestingly though, if we did follow that example and apply it universally, we would also not jail people for beaking the law either as Jesus told the woman to go (free) and sin no more instead of opting for a life sentence over death. And I've never run across another Christian who was anti-jail.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone... Just not lest ye be judged...Turn the other cheek...I don't see a lot in the Gospels that justifies capital punishment and it certainly is not an endorsement of Life if you take a human beings life, even someone you think is an abomination.

 

[Rovers]

If it weren't for the uproar from pro choice advocates... anyone who saw it would have no clue how subversive, derisive and judgemental it actually was. Shame on Mrs. Tebow for calling her son Tim her miracle baby. Oh, the shame of it all.

 

[PewterFan]

That was it? I think we all feel a little silly right now.

While I'm Pro-Choice, I can respect the man's opinion and the fact that he has the opportunity to express it. I can live in a world where people aren't exactly like me.

 

[metoo]

That was it? I think we all feel a little silly right now.

While I'm Pro-Choice, I can respect the man's opinion and the fact that he has the opportunity to express it. I can live in a world where people aren't exactly like me.

/thread

 

[adamjw2]

Women's groups urge CBS to drop Tebow Super Bowl ad NEW YORK (AP)A national coalition of women's groups called on CBS on Monday to scrap its plan to broadcast an ad during the Super Bowl featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, which critics say is likely to convey an anti-abortion message."An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together," said Jemhu Greene, president of the New York-based Women's Media Center.The center was coordinating the protest with backing from the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and other groups.CBS said it has approved the script for the 30-second ad and has given no indication that the protest would have an impact. A network spokesman, Dana McClintock, said CBS would ensure that any issue-oriented ad was "appropriate for air."The ad -- paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family -- is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two BCS championships.The controversy over the ad was raised Sunday when Tebow met with reporters in Mobile, Ala., before beginning preparations for next weekend's Senior Bowl."I know some people won't agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe," Tebow said. "I've always been very convicted of it (his views on abortion) because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it."On Tuesday, CBS reacted to the furor, saying it has eased its restrictions on advocacy ads and would consider any that are "responsibly produced" for the few open spots remaining for the Feb. 7 broadcast. CBS says it has received both critical and supportive e-mails since women's groups began the protest campaign.Thirty-second commercials during the Super Bowl are selling for $2.5 million to $2.8 million. Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, said funds for the Tebow ad were donated by a few "very generous friends" and did not come from the group's general fund.Schneeberger said he and his colleagues "were a little surprised" at the furor over the ad."There's nothing political and controversial about it," he said. "When the day arrives, and you sit down to watch the game on TV, those who oppose it will be quite surprised at what the ad is all about."The protest letter from the Women's Media Center suggested that CBS should have turned down the ad in part because it was conceived by Focus on the Family."By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," the letter said.However, Schneeberger said CBS officials carefully examined Focus on the Family's track record and found no basis for rejecting the ad."We understand that some people don't think very highly of what we do," Schneeberger said. "We're not trying to sell you a soft drink -- we're not selling anything. We're trying to celebrate families."The idea for the ad came from an employee in Focus on the Family's film department, Schneeberger said, and the Tebows "were thrilled" when it was proposed to them. The Tebows, including Tim, have been outspoken in discussing their Christian faith and their missionary work.All the national networks, including CBS, have policies that rule out the broadcast of certain types of contentious advocacy ads. In 2004, CBS cited such a policy in rejecting an ad by the liberal-leaning United Church of Christ highlighting the UCC's welcoming stance toward gays and others who might feel shunned by more conservative churches.CBS was criticized for rejecting that ad -- and perhaps might have worried about comparable criticism from conservatives if it had rejected an ad featuring such a charismatic and well-known figure as Tebow.CBS noted that it had run some advocacy ads in recent months, including spots taking conflicting sides in the debate of a national health care overhaul.Terry O'Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women, said she had respect for the private choices made by women such as Pam Tebow but condemned the planned ad as "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.""That's not being respectful of other people's lives," O'Neill said. "It is offensive to hold one way out as being a superior way over everybody else's."

I won't watch the game if political and religious ads are aired. This is football not Sunday school. Don't force your values into my living room when I want to enjoy an American tradition. Politics and religion have no place in football.

I hope you didn't miss the game over this.

 

[Chaka]

That was very tame and, for what it was, well done.

It still pushes the message I thought it was going to push but the language they used was very well crafted and overall it was not offensive. I guess they really did not need to be direct with the language in the actual commercial because, like the Mancrunch commercial, the controversy surrounding the commercial was the most effective means to send their message.

Well done FotF, I still don't like your organization but you did a good job with this commercial.

 

[SSOG]

That was it? I think we all feel a little silly right now.

I'm actually disappointed. I don't support their position but I thought they'd express it a bit more directly. That was milquetoast.

I don't know, I think it was more a matter of respecting the audience. The superbowl is essentially family programming, and I'm sure a lot of parents were glad they didn't have to explain to their 8-year old child what an abortion is. Even though FotF and I are on opposite sides of the aisle on this one, I respect the fact that they made an effort to express their position without offending. Anymore, I find that tact is quite a rarity when discussing polarizing political viewpoints.

 

[SSOG]

I'd say the ad was pretty successful, too- after all, it's the only SB ad currently featured in a front page story on Sports Illustrated.

My favorite bit of the article:

The Women's Media Center, which had objected to Focus on the Family advertising in the Super Bowl, said it was expecting a "benign" ad but not the humor. But the group's president, Jehmu Greene, said the tackle showed an undercurrent of violence against women.

"I think they're attempting to use humor as another tactic of hiding their message and fooling the American people," she said.

Basically, FotF managed to make a sensitive and tactful ad that probably did a pretty good job at selling their position to the undecided, but which simultaneously made their most vocal opposition look like drooling mouth-breathers that any rational human being would hesitate to ever be associated with. I'd call them evil geniuses if I didn't think I'd be giving them too much credit.

 

[Chaka]

But the group's president, Jehmu Greene, said the tackle showed an undercurrent of violence against women.

I hope Jehmu didn't hurt his shoulder too bad with that reach.The commercial was not terrible, it does not make FotF a good organization but they did a great job of presenting their message without being overtly offensive...except for the part about beating all those women.

 

[cr8f]

Glad missed it. I'm tired of what the NFL and networks have done to this game. It gets more BS and hollywood all the time.

Abortion is a heated issue. Even those who think women should choose themselves don't like abortion.

If they are going to let right wing people do commercials they should let a response be aired too. Either allow politics or don't don't just let one side be aired.

 

[Two Deep]

ok with the ad but uncomfortable with TIMMY and his mom.

 

[onionsack]

I have strong and deep-seeded opinions on the matter.

Such a great eggcorn, given the subject matter.

 

[katarr]

Glad missed it. I'm tired of what the NFL and networks have done to this game. It gets more BS and hollywood all the time. Abortion is a heated issue. Even those who think women should choose themselves don't like abortion.If they are going to let right wing people do commercials they should let a response be aired too. Either allow politics or don't don't just let one side be aired.

If the Women's Media Center hadn't made an issue about it i wouldn't have even known it was about abortion. It was more about a mother being proud of her son for surviving a high risk birth."he almost didn't make it into this world" was the most offensive thing she said.

 

[Osaurus]

ManCrunch would have really jazzed up the SB IMO.

 

[PewterFan]

I missed it.

Here you go.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Later that night I had unprotected sex. That's what the TV told me to do.

 

[JamesTheScot]

I have strong and deep-seeded opinions on the matter.

Such a great eggcorn, given the subject matter.

Doh. Fortunate error, I must confess. I actually asked myself which it was before I typed. I lazily went with which one made more sense to me...and I've got more experience seeding things than seating them.



The one that always catches my attention is "I could care less" though, from your link, that would be a malapropism instead of an eggcorn. Learned something new today. It was a good day.

 

[JamesTheScot]

I presume that God gave the death penalty to the Jews, that Jesus was an observant Jew, and He did not say that the death penalty was abolished for those trangressions so identified in the Old Testament. So I believe a Christian can be pro death penalty and still be within the Faith.Interestingly though, if we did follow that example and apply it universally, we would also not jail people for beaking the law either as Jesus told the woman to go (free) and sin no more instead of opting for a life sentence over death. And I've never run across another Christian who was anti-jail.

People of all faiths use their divinely inspired literature to justify all manner of things.I question whether Jesus would have participated in a stoning under any circumstances. He was pretty forgiving of prostitutes and those who crucified innocent men.I know the teachings say that everyone will be judged in the next life but I can't recall Jesus ever saying "Let's hasten their arrival to the next life."It is an interesting question for philosophers and scholars and people who assume the name of television neanderthals and post on internet message boards to ponder.

Good posting.Jesus's silence on some of these issues is why I am coming to believe, ironically, that this life means so very little in spite of how precious we believe it to be. The point of this life is not what happens to us in it, but what we do with what we are dealt. In many ways, Jesus was apolitical. His focus was on the individual's soul rather than society or government. A few months, a few years or a few decades worth of comfort, joy, pleasure, pain or discomfort matter little when compared to eternity.

 

[SSOG]

The one that always catches my attention is "I could care less" though, from your link, that would be a malapropism instead of an eggcorn. Learned something new today. It was a good day.

There's nothing wrong with the phrase "I could care less". It originally started as a sarcastic offshoot of "I couldn't care less". The implicit meaning is "I could care less... but it would be exceedingly difficult to do so". In addition, the Oxford dictionary already recognizes "could care less" as a colloquialism meaning one does not care about something at all.The English language is constantly evolving. At one point in time, it was considered incorrect to refer to a single piece of data as "data"- you were supposed to use the singular form of the word, "datum". Now, "datum" is all but obsolete and it is perfectly acceptable to use "data" as a mass noun and treat it as both the singular and the plural form. Maybe "I could care less" was once incorrect, but by now it's become grammatically acceptable, even if the "couldn't care less" crowd is still set in its ways and intent on squashing that particular usage. At least, that's how it seems to me... but I could care less about the matter.

My big grammatical pet peeve is when people say "begs the question" instead of "raises the question".

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

I have no problem with people misusing words as long as they understand what they're doing and realize the consequences, i.e. when you write "I could care less" many people read it as a dumb error.

 

[Wadsworth]

I have no problem with people misusing words as long as they understand what they're doing and realize the consequences, i.e. when you write "I could care less" many people read it as a dumb error.

What if you really mean that you could care less?

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Then I think you could find a clearer way to express that. Unless you are just trying to confuse people, which I am generally a fan of.

 

[bonesman]

The one that always catches my attention is "I could care less" though, from your link, that would be a malapropism instead of an eggcorn. Learned something new today. It was a good day.

There's nothing wrong with the phrase "I could care less". It originally started as a sarcastic offshoot of "I couldn't care less". The implicit meaning is "I could care less... but it would be exceedingly difficult to do so". In addition, the Oxford dictionary already recognizes "could care less" as a colloquialism meaning one does not care about something at all.The English language is constantly evolving. At one point in time, it was considered incorrect to refer to a single piece of data as "data"- you were supposed to use the singular form of the word, "datum". Now, "datum" is all but obsolete and it is perfectly acceptable to use "data" as a mass noun and treat it as both the singular and the plural form. Maybe "I could care less" was once incorrect, but by now it's become grammatically acceptable, even if the "couldn't care less" crowd is still set in its ways and intent on squashing that particular usage. At least, that's how it seems to me... but I could care less about the matter.

My big grammatical pet peeve is when people say "begs the question" instead of "raises the question".

I raise your pardon?

 

[Scooby1974]

Later that night I had unprotected sex. That's what the TV told me to do.

And I went out and bought all sorts of doritos and bud light. I started a blog at GoDaddy too. What? It's not like I had a choice.

 

[JamesTheScot]

The one that always catches my attention is "I could care less" though, from your link, that would be a malapropism instead of an eggcorn. Learned something new today. It was a good day.

There's nothing wrong with the phrase "I could care less". It originally started as a sarcastic offshoot of "I couldn't care less". The implicit meaning is "I could care less... but it would be exceedingly difficult to do so". In addition, the Oxford dictionary already recognizes "could care less" as a colloquialism meaning one does not care about something at all.The English language is constantly evolving. At one point in time, it was considered incorrect to refer to a single piece of data as "data"- you were supposed to use the singular form of the word, "datum". Now, "datum" is all but obsolete and it is perfectly acceptable to use "data" as a mass noun and treat it as both the singular and the plural form. Maybe "I could care less" was once incorrect, but by now it's become grammatically acceptable, even if the "couldn't care less" crowd is still set in its ways and intent on squashing that particular usage. At least, that's how it seems to me... but I could care less about the matter.

My big grammatical pet peeve is when people say "begs the question" instead of "raises the question".

First, I am very unconvinced that "could care less" was an intentional sarcastic offshoot of "couldn't care less". To use "I could care less, but it would be difficult to do so" and shorten it in usage to simply "could care less" would require that the listener understand the full reference when presented with the shorthand version of it. And for that to happen, the longhand version would have to be exceedingly common in its usage. I don't believe that the longhand version was ever that widely and commonly used. So I suspect it was persons simply being imprecise in their usage of the phrase "couldn't care less" and they never stopped to think about it logically. They heard the expression and then incorrectly repeated it. I suspect that if you ask someone what they meant when they use the expression "could care less" they will near universally describe "couldn't care less" as their intent.

But why bother to be peeved then on the misuse of "begs the question", given your first two paragraphs? If it hasn't already happened, it's just a matter of time before some dictionary decides to give in and allow misuse to be the new use under the excuse of colloquialism. Simply another example of slouching to Gomorrah, to misapply the saying.

My experience is that "begs the question" is an eggcorn. Someone finds the stated proposition or statement so outrageous or incomplete that they think it screams to be challenged. Thus the assertion or statement "begs" to be questioned further. This usage is perhaps as accurate since it relies as closely on the literal english meaning of "begs the question" as does the traditional association with the fallacy of petitio principii or "circular reasoning".

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Hello offseason.

 

[SSOG]

First, I am very unconvinced that "could care less" was an intentional sarcastic offshoot of "couldn't care less". To use "I could care less, but it would be difficult to do so" and shorten it in usage to simply "could care less" would require that the listener understand the full reference when presented with the shorthand version of it. And for that to happen, the longhand version would have to be exceedingly common in its usage. I don't believe that the longhand version was ever that widely and commonly used.

So I suspect it was persons simply being imprecise in their usage of the phrase "couldn't care less" and they never stopped to think about it logically. They heard the expression and then incorrectly repeated it. I suspect that if you ask someone what they meant when they use the expression "could care less" they will near universally describe "couldn't care less" as their intent.

But why bother to be peeved then on the misuse of "begs the question", given your first two paragraphs? If it hasn't already happened, it's just a matter of time before some dictionary decides to give in and allow misuse to be the new use under the excuse of colloquialism. Simply another example of slouching to Gomorrah, to misapply the saying.

My experience is that "begs the question" is an eggcorn. Someone finds the stated proposition or statement so outrageous or incomplete that they think it screams to be challenged. Thus the assertion or statement "begs" to be questioned further. This usage is perhaps as accurate since it relies as closely on the literal english meaning of "begs the question" as does the traditional association with the fallacy of petitio principii or "circular reasoning".

Some links discussing the linguistic origins of "I could care less":http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxcouldc.html

Also, an excerpt from Merriam Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage:

The origin of could care less is also obscure. All we know about it for sure is that it came later. Harper 1875, 1985 reports getting letters asking about the expression starting in 1960. That would suggest its existence in speech around that time. No printed examples have so far turned up that antedate the 1966 examples collected by James B. McMillan and cited in his article in American Speech (Fall 1978 ). Our earliest citation is from what appears to be a wire-service picture caption:

This roarless wonder at Chicago’s Brookfield Zoo could care less about the old saying dealing with the advent of March - Springfield (Mass.) Republican, 2 Mar. 1968

The reason why the negative particle was lost without changing the meaning of the phrase has been the subject of much speculation, most of it not very convincing. No one seems to have advanced the simple idea that the rhythm of the phrase may be better for purposes of emphatic sarcasm with could care less, which would have its main stress on care, than with couldn’t care less, where the stress would be more nearly equal on could and care. You, however, may not find this argument very convincing either.

The attitude of the commentators toward could care less has in general been negative. Safire 1980 saw usage of could care less as having peaked in 1973; he dismissed it as defunct in 1980. But it has not disappeared:

The Americans, of course, could care less about British reaction - Joseph White, Springfield (Mass.) Union-News, June 1993

. . . they could care less what anybody outside the team thinks of them - E. M. Swift, Sports Illustrated, 6 Apr. 1987

. . . instead of belonging to an old-line business lobby . . . she is a member of the more militant National Federation of Independent Business. . . . She could care less about the IMF. Her concerns are doing away with estate taxes . . . - Richard Dunham, Business Week, 14 Sept. 1998

Bernstein 1971 thought it not quite established then; if it becomes established, he ways, it will be another example of "reverse English." Pairs of words or phrases that look like opposites but mean the same thing are not unkown in English: ravel/unravel, can but/cannot but, for instance.

This is what our present evidence suggests: while could care less may be superior in speech for purposes of sarasm, it is hard to be obviously sarcastic in print. This may explain why most writers, faced with putting the words on paper, choose the clearer couldn’t care less.

As you can see, there is considerable weight behind the theory that "I could care less" is an intentional offshoot of "I couldn't care less" rather than a simple mistake. The biggest support, in my mind, is the fact that "I could care less" doesn't actually sound anything like "I couldn't care less", as pointed out in the passage I quoted from Merriam Webster. It's not just the matter of dropping the "n't" from the end of a word... going from "I couldn't care less" to "I could care less" changes the entire pacing and accenting of the phrase. It's a minor change when written, but a significant and easily noticeable difference when spoken aloud.The reason "begs the question/raises the question" bothers me and "could care less/couldn't care less" doesn't (aside from the fact that "could care less" is a perfectly linguistically acceptable usage, of course) is one of clarity. If someone says "I couldn't care less", I know exactly what they mean; they mean that they don't care. If someone says "I could care less", I also know exactly what they mean; they mean that they don't care. If someone says "raises the question", I know exactly what they mean; they mean that something invites obvious questioning. If someone says "begs the question", though, there's no such immediate clarity. They might mean that something invites questions, or they might mean that something isn't logically sound.

A different (but strongly related) reason why it bothers me is that "begs the question" is a phrase that already means something. "Could care less" and "couldn't care less" are both idioms that didn't really have any meaning beyond the strictly literal until they became idiomatic expressions... and no, the strictly literal meaning of "I couldn't care less" isn't necessarily that I don't care. For instance, I could say "The love I have for my wife is so great that I couldn't possibly care less for her", and in this instance the strictly literal meaning of "couldn't care less" is not "I don't care in the first place". In the instances of "could care less", "couldn't care less", and "raises the question", a random string of words that did not have any particular meaning as a whole was taken, turned into a figure of speech, and imbued with special meaning separate from the individual meanings of the component words. With "begs the question", though, the user isn't taking a string of words and turning them into a figure of speech, the user is taking an ALREADY ESTABLISHED figure of speech and blatantly misusing it. Major difference.

Hello offseason.

For serious.

 

[NoFBinLA]

What the heck happened to this thread? How did it become about language?

 

[maxwelledison]

That was it? I think we all feel a little silly right now.

While I'm Pro-Choice, I can respect the man's opinion and the fact that he has the opportunity to express it. I can live in a world where people aren't exactly like me.

/thread

And to echo SSOG it was tactful and understated. Good reminder of the effectiveness (not to mention civility) of that technique.

 

[SSOG]

What the heck happened to this thread? How did it become about language?

We were debating what was the best way to express just how little we actually care about Tim Tebow's superbowl commercial, because we care so little about the commercial that we'd rather discuss how best to express how little we care than the commercial itself.

 

[NoFBinLA]

What the heck happened to this thread? How did it become about language?

We were debating what was the best way to express just how little we actually care about Tim Tebow's superbowl commercial, because we care so little about the commercial that we'd rather discuss how best to express how little we care than the commercial itself.

I like it.Probably a more productive discussion anyway.

 

[Polar Dude]

Glad missed it. I'm tired of what the NFL and networks have done to this game. It gets more BS and hollywood all the time.

Abortion is a heated issue. Even those who think women should choose themselves don't like abortion.

If they are going to let right wing people do commercials they should let a response be aired too. Either allow politics or don't don't just let one side be aired.

Exactly what kind of response would have been appropriate? "Tim Tebow never should have been born. His mother should have aborted that little miracle baby!"

 

[MasterofOrion]

Gentle Tebow Ad Has Big Impact

the data suggests that about 1.7 million pro-abortion viewers reconsidered their position after watching the spot.

 

[John 14:6]

Gentle Tebow Ad Has Big Impact

the data suggests that about 1.7 million pro-abortion viewers reconsidered their position after watching the spot.

I know how that feels to worry about a baby making it. My wife had two miscarriages and one was showing the same symptoms with her third pregnancy. We prayed and prayed that one would make it through and he did! He's going to be 5 soon and will be a Heisman winner someday!Or not...