4 ms·

Umm -- YES! Sexist advertising campaign = Silly, but I am not going to choose or drop a registrar based on that. CEO shooting an innocent animal = A company tha

Umm -- YES! Sexist advertising campaign = Silly, but I am not going to choose or drop a registrar based on that. CEO shooting an innocent animal = A company that I don't want to do business with. You aren't trying to say that showing some scantily clad women is equivalent to killing, are you?

nhangen 16y ago
Besides, Jillian Michaels and Danica Patrick are willing participants.
travisp 16y ago
Almost every CEO in the country is responsible for killing "innocent" animals, since most are not vegetarian. Most are paying others to do it for them and are eating it themselves, but why is that morally better?
- mc2k 16y ago
  This is a form of blood sport (i.e. killing for personal entertainment). Animals that are destined for human consumption aren't generally killed for entertainment.
locopati 16y ago
You are connecting the actions of the CEO with the actions of the company. I am making a point about the culture of a company that actively promotes themselves with sexist advertising campaigns. They are free to do as they wish and I am free to suggest that supporting a company that promotes themselves in this manner is also supporting the attitude in our culture that 'women==objects for our amusement' and is rewarding them for adopting that attitude for profit. [addressing a sibling comment] Yes, the actors in the ads are willing participants...and that matters why? One useful way we have of responding to corporations is by not participating in their activity if we do not agree with them. And yet, this ability is horribly underused. Don't like sexism? Don't support companies that rely on it. Don't like violence? Don't support companies that participate in it? I just find it interesting where people draw the lines.
namityadav 16y ago
@locopati You are right. The difference is in where people draw the lines. @travisp I've heard this logic before. Your girlfriend perhaps eats beef. Ask her to take a chainsaw and chop a cow for her next meal. She'll tell you how the two things are different.

nhangen 16y ago

Besides, Jillian Michaels and Danica Patrick are willing participants.

travisp 16y ago

Almost every CEO in the country is responsible for killing "innocent" animals, since most are not vegetarian. Most are paying others to do it for them and are eating it themselves, but why is that morally better?

mc2k 16y ago
This is a form of blood sport (i.e. killing for personal entertainment). Animals that are destined for human consumption aren't generally killed for entertainment.

locopati 16y ago

You are connecting the actions of the CEO with the actions of the company. I am making a point about the culture of a company that actively promotes themselves with sexist advertising campaigns. They are free to do as they wish and I am free to suggest that supporting a company that promotes themselves in this manner is also supporting the attitude in our culture that 'women==objects for our amusement' and is rewarding them for adopting that attitude for profit. [addressing a sibling comment] Yes, the actors in the ads are willing participants...and that matters why? One useful way we have of responding to corporations is by not participating in their activity if we do not agree with them. And yet, this ability is horribly underused. Don't like sexism? Don't support companies that rely on it. Don't like violence? Don't support companies that participate in it? I just find it interesting where people draw the lines.

namityadav 16y ago

@locopati You are right. The difference is in where people draw the lines. @travisp I've heard this logic before. Your girlfriend perhaps eats beef. Ask her to take a chainsaw and chop a cow for her next meal. She'll tell you how the two things are different.