Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Ever feel you're on the wrong side of an argument?

Agree with Core Issues Trust

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 814 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:56 PM

Since when did the right to not be offended stop someone putting up an advertisement?

The concept of people being "cured" of gayness is very controversial,but if there are people out there who have had feeling of attraction to members of the same sex, and now believe they don't, whether deluding themselves or not, they can be described as ex or post gay. So, purely from a point of view of the legality of displaying the advert, I can't see how this is different from the original Stonewall message. At the same time I find their desire to be anti gay very disturbing, but they no doubt would describe it as Pro- hetrosexual.


http://www.bbc.co.uk...london-21613433

#2 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,900 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:06 PM

wrong side of an argument?

That just aout sums up every day of my lifeliving at our house: feisty daughter, smrt wife, son who can read me like a book.
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#3 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,865 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:16 PM

Since when did the right to not be offended stop someone putting up an advertisement?

The concept of people being "cured" of gayness is very controversial,but if there are people out there who have had feeling of attraction to members of the same sex, and now believe they don't, whether deluding themselves or not, they can be described as ex or post gay. So, purely from a point of view of the legality of displaying the advert, I can't see how this is different from the original Stonewall message. At the same time I find their desire to be anti gay very disturbing, but they no doubt would describe it as Pro- hetrosexual.


http://www.bbc.co.uk...london-21613433


Surely it is up to TfL what adverts they allow on their buses.
Fides invicta triumphat

#4 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,207 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:21 PM

Not sure about the "a deep threat" to democratic freedoms!

However, I'd argue the add should have been pulled due to false advertising instead. Homeopathy can't claim to cure cancer in adverts as there is no empirical evidence backing it up, this should not be aloud to advertise a 'cure' to homosexuality without empirical evidence and peer reviewed articles in relevant journals.

#5 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 814 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:23 PM

Surely it is up to TfL what adverts they allow on their buses.


So if TfL banned the athiest and Stonewall adverts which had featured in the past you'd not see an issue, as it's their bus their rules? Do TfL receive public funding whilst deciding which political messages they do and don't agree with?

EDIT *** Agree with Sev's reponse below.

Edited by MikeW, 28 February 2013 - 01:27 PM.


#6 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,865 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:25 PM

Not sure about the "a deep threat" to democratic freedoms!

However, I'd argue the add should have been pulled due to false advertising instead. Homeopathy can't claim to cure cancer in adverts as there is no empirical evidence backing it up, this should not be aloud to advertise a 'cure' to homosexuality without empirical evidence and peer reviewed articles in relevant journals.


It would be interesting to see the wording of the offending adverts. The one from the BBC link says

Not gay! Ex Gay, post gay and proud. Get over it.


Ignoring the tautology I'm sure this could be true for many people. I.e., they thought they were gay and now think that they are straight. If that was the wording on the ad, I don't see a problem with it. If they are saying they can cure gayness that is another thing.
Fides invicta triumphat

#7 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,865 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:26 PM

So if TfL banned the athiest and Stonewall adverts which had featured in the past you'd not see an issue, as it's their bus their rules? Do TfL receive public funding whilst deciding which political messages they do and don't agree with?


See my response above.
Fides invicta triumphat

#8 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 814 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:26 PM

Not sure about the "a deep threat" to democratic freedoms!

However, I'd argue the add should have been pulled due to false advertising instead. Homeopathy can't claim to cure cancer in adverts as there is no empirical evidence backing it up, this should not be aloud to advertise a 'cure' to homosexuality without empirical evidence and peer reviewed articles in relevant journals.


If they used the word cure in their advert I'd agree but they don't. People don't have to prove that they used to be gay and now they aren't, in the same way people don't have to prove they are gay, people should just get over it either way.

#9 Red Willow

Red Willow
  • Coach
  • 4,700 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:29 PM

Gayness isn't something to be cured though is it.

#10 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 814 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:31 PM

Gayness isn't something to be cured though is it.


No, but the advert doesn't mention being cured does it? The advert and the reactionary homophobes behind it must be taken as two separate entities IMO

#11 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,207 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:34 PM

Ignoring the tautology I'm sure this could be true for many people. I.e., they thought they were gay and now think that they are straight. If that was the wording on the ad, I don't see a problem with it. If they are saying they can cure gayness that is another thing.


It doesn't have to use the word cure, if it is strongly implied then it is in breach. Sticking with the homeopathy example, adverts have been pulled for saying the help 'treat' cancer and HIV (which of course they don't).

I would argue that in this case there is a strong implication that a religious order can help you 'get over it'. The evidence strongly shows that such 'treatments' lead to a higher rate of suicides and unhappiness If you're interested I'll dig up a link to the research paper for that study.

Edited by RidingPie, 28 February 2013 - 01:34 PM.


#12 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 814 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:51 PM

It doesn't have to use the word cure, if it is strongly implied then it is in breach. Sticking with the homeopathy example, adverts have been pulled for saying the help 'treat' cancer and HIV (which of course they don't).

I would argue that in this case there is a strong implication that a religious order can help you 'get over it'. The evidence strongly shows that such 'treatments' lead to a higher rate of suicides and unhappiness If you're interested I'll dig up a link to the research paper for that study.


evidence strongly shows that alcohol leads to many social problems, but we don't ban that being advertised, we just strongly regulate what can and can't be attributed to it. Likewise junk food leads to an obesity crisis. Not liking the message, or even thinking the message indirectly could lead to harm does not justify a ban.

Edited by MikeW, 28 February 2013 - 01:54 PM.


#13 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,139 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:09 PM

Since when did the right to not be offended stop someone putting up an advertisement?

The concept of people being "cured" of gayness is very controversial,but if there are people out there who have had feeling of attraction to members of the same sex, and now believe they don't, whether deluding themselves or not, they can be described as ex or post gay. So, purely from a point of view of the legality of displaying the advert, I can't see how this is different from the original Stonewall message. At the same time I find their desire to be anti gay very disturbing, but they no doubt would describe it as Pro- hetrosexual.


http://www.bbc.co.uk...london-21613433


Their sole mission is to enable homosexuals to change their sexuality through counselling. (And here is the entire advert).

TfL have banned plenty of adverts in their time, often for very poor reasons so they do have previous. I'd have no problem with the sentiments of this advert being plastered on the side of buses but the deliberate use of Stonewall's font and colours, and the 'no context' approach leave me thinking that there is a very unpleasant directness about it.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#14 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,207 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:09 PM

evidence strongly shows that alcohol leads to many social problems, but we don't ban that being advertised, we just strongly regulate what can and can't be attributed to it. Likewise junk food leads to an obesity crisis. Not liking the message, or even thinking the message indirectly could lead to harm does not justify a ban.


There is a BIG difference between your examples and what is being talked about, alcohol, and junk food, are voluntarily bought and consumed by people. Homosexuality, is just something a person is. I would not be happy about a bus ad saying something like "Not black! Ex Black, post Black and proud. Get over it." which I feel would be a closer hypothetical example.

Edited by RidingPie, 28 February 2013 - 02:11 PM.


#15 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 814 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:52 PM

Homosexuality, is just something a person is.


You are still arguing then that the statement on the bus is factually inaccurate, which would be a justification for it to be banned. Are you aware of people who believe that they were once black and now aren't? (Kings of Pop excepted)

#16 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,207 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:10 PM

You are still arguing then that the statement on the bus is factually inaccurate, which would be a justification for it to be banned. Are you aware of people who believe that they were once black and now aren't? (Kings of Pop excepted)


My argument has always been that this is false advertising (slightly different to being factually inaccurate but I'll grant you not far). Again we are not talking here about people who 'believe' they were of one ethnic origin and changed (wasn't aware of that being a regular phenomenon away from the king of pop, who lets face it was probably showing some instability over that).

I'm curious would you be happy for people to advertise 'cures' for race/ethnicity etc. I certainly wouldn't be.

#17 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 814 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:49 PM

My argument has always been that this is false advertising (slightly different to being factually inaccurate but I'll grant you not far). Again we are not talking here about people who 'believe' they were of one ethnic origin and changed (wasn't aware of that being a regular phenomenon away from the king of pop, who lets face it was probably showing some instability over that).

I'm curious would you be happy for people to advertise 'cures' for race/ethnicity etc. I certainly wouldn't be.


What cures? Who is explicitly curing homosexuality? I'm sorry if I appear to be being very pedantic, but that is because the premise of my argument is very pedantic by definition. It's similar to the athiest advert. They were banned from saying "There is no God", so they said "There probably is no God". We all knew what they really meant, but their phrasing meant that LEGALLY there was nothing wrong with their statement. Likewise we know what the horrible small minded message is that the Core Issues Trust is trying to make, but the message they are actually making is not necessarily proveably untrue.

#18 MikeW

MikeW
  • Coach
  • 814 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:53 PM

I would not be happy about a bus ad saying something like "Not black! Ex Black, post Black and proud. Get over it." which I feel would be a closer hypothetical example.


You've won me over on this argument. The DIRECT implication of the Stonewall advert was there was nothing wrong with being gay, NOT that there was something wrong with being straight. But the Core Trust advert is not implying that being straight is great, but that being gay isn't. You see I knew I was wrong I just couldn't figure out why!!

#19 RidingPie

RidingPie
  • Coach
  • 1,207 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 04:03 PM

You've won me over on this argument. The DIRECT implication of the Stonewall advert was there was nothing wrong with being gay, NOT that there was something wrong with being straight. But the Core Trust advert is not implying that being straight is great, but that being gay isn't. You see I knew I was wrong I just couldn't figure out why!!


You put that far better than I managed.

its nice to have a good spirited debate... can you tell I've been working from home this afternoon on a VERY monotonous task :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users