to think that there has been an over reaction to the Dr Pepper incident?

[TheCoalitionNeedsYou]

Not my opinion but that of Chiabom amongst others who can hopefully continue the debate here instead.

No, I cannot, I can however say that becoming outraged over things so small that will happen so frequently will eventually cause someone a heart attack, if these people truly get so mad. That can't be good for your health! I believe what is right is what is most beneficial. And, it seems to me that since no one was hurt, no one was killed that this isn't worth an outrage, it was a simple sentence. Should they have said it? No, but what is the worth of getting so angry over it? What will be accomplished? They'll yell at Coca-Cola, they'll say 'sorry' and they'll move on and continue making obscene amounts of money.

You gain nothing but causing yourself stress. How is that beneficial? How does that help anyone or anything? To "ensure something like this never happens again" sure okay, something like this will happen again though, maybe not of this precise nature, but something will. So why do I feel getting outraged over this is a bad idea? Because masses of angry people waste their time to try to accomplish nothing, because all in all it won't be seen as That big of a deal. Coca-Cola won't get shut down, Coca-Cola probably won't lose a harmful amount of customers due to this. It's like getting mad at your flowers for not growing fast enough, you being mad won't fix it, you'll just be mad.

Sure this isn't irrefutable proof and evidence, but it sure as hell makes a lot more sense than flipping out over a single small incident.

How about irrefutable proof and evidence that no-one was hurt? Or do you only recognise physical hurt as valid?

Why do you keep insisting that it was a waste of time that accomplished nothing? It did accomplish something; Coke admitted unreservedly that they were wrong, and pulled the offending campaign. The agency will presumably look more carefully at their advertising techniques from now on. That is exactly what MrsR intended to achieve, and she achieved it.

Compare and contrast to the time you've spent on here, arguing with people whom you acknowledge will not change their minds. Is that not a waste of time, then?

Why on earth put your energy into trying to persuade others not to care about something?

I'm not getting angry over it. And I recognize physical hurt in this situation, because if you're emotionally hurt over this, I question your ability to handle everyday life. And I already addressed this, nothing really changes though, it didn't cause the company any real set back.

Right, so we're back to my first proposition: you believe that emotional hurt is invalid and that anyone experiencing emotional hurt in this context is oversensitive. Why do you believe this? On what basis?

You keep giving me "proof" that it was okay; to wit, because no-one was physically harmed. I'm asking the basis on which you have formed the opinion that anyone experiencing emotional harm can be discounted because they must be a delicate flower? Doesn't that mean you can always discount any harm that isn't physical, if the experience of the harmed person can be dismissed this way?

Ah, LadyBiscuit, you only think that because you're a delicate flower who can't cope with the real world. So therefore I'm going to dismiss your point of view.

Cor, this whole male entitlement thing is great, I could get used to it.

Emotional hurt should not occur in this specific scenario, please, you're adults, why are you getting so damned offended over a stupid campaigning mishap, they're words, that have to do with something that, albeit gross, isn't harmful. I'll admit, I can't think of a more valid reason than a mere personal feeling that you should not be emotionally hurt by this, simply because it's not a big deal. What is there to be hurt about? A stupid sentence that has to do with defecating and vomiting on one another, it's petty, it's small, it's insignificant. It's a damn video, so many people have seen it, all too many children have already viewed this, it's not an uncommon thing. So I stand by it is not a big deal, if you're emotionally hurt by it, go to therapy and explain to your therapist how Coca-Cola's campaign had one single post on a child's facebook that has to do with scat porn. You saw this and you immediately took it to heart and feel you can't face the world without looking at the human race in shame.

Truly, if someone takes this and is 'emotionally hurt' by it, I genuinely feel the person needs some kind for another problem.

tortoise. What do I know? I'm a mother - I left my mental capacity at the door

LadyBiscuit - I've spent a large amount of time defending point after point to people who will not listen to me because I feel this way, I'm not trolling. If I were trolling, I'd make fifty to a hundred accounts under different IP addresses using proxy websites and spam offensive content all over the pages of this website, believe me, it is not that hard. Trolling is not my intention, please stop insulting me, there is plenty of foundation to my point of view, I'm not trying 'wind people up' and I am personally offended that you are insulting me for having a point of view, it is people like you who truly make me lose faith in the world. You can handle the fact that another human being has a point of view, I listen to everything all of you had to say, and I kindly rebutted it and I was respectful about it. You should show me that respect. If you don't like what you're hearing and you can't bring yourself out of your own narrow minded philosophy, then kindly leave, you have no place being here, this is a discussion, if you can't participate without being disrespectful, go away. I am reporting you, for insulting me for no real reason, by the way.

oh please do go ahead and report me. Make My Day

Please leave, you have no business in this topic, if anyone is trolling at this point, it is you, as you are making a clear attack toward my person for having a different concept than others in this topic. You have nothing useful to input, so please be-gone this topic was made FOR this discussion, if people are becoming angered at what I'm saying, they can leave, there's no need to insult me.

The problem in what you're saying is that I'm not engaging for the sake of it, I'm engaging in this argument because this is what I believe, I have been at this for the entire day, I'm not about to waste my time arguing something I don't believe for an entire day for sick humor, that's childish. The foundation to my point? It's not a big deal, this was taken too far out of hand and I'm trying to get that point across.

"I'll admit, I can't think of a more valid reason than a mere personal feeling that you should not be emotionally hurt by this"

Chiabom, that personal feeling of yours should not occur in this scenario. Please, you're an adult.

And as for being personally offended by LadyBiscuit! Why are you getting so damned offended over a stupid internet post, they're words, that have to do with something that, albeit annoying, isn't harmful.

"it is people like you who truly make me lose faith in the world."

I suggest that if you're emotionally hurt by it, go to therapy and explain to your therapist how LadyBiscuit made a single post on a parenting website. You saw this and you immediately took it to heart and feel you can't face the world without looking at the human race in shame.

From the rules of this entire site "we will remove postings that are obscene, contain personal attacks or break the law. "

This right here is what you're doing.

I'm not doing a single thing that falls into the category of what this website defines as a troll, I'm not starting any trouble, nor am I personally attacking anyone, which you're doing.

You're so clever! See what you did there! Case by case, my friend, there's a fine line between posting something out of sheer humor and a malignant attack toward my person which is clearly against the rules of this website. Thank you for that though tortoise, that was very clever of you.

Sorry, are you accusing me of making a malignant attack toward your person by reflecting your words back?

You haven't respected anyone else's viewpoint - you've consistently said that they're invalid and a complete over-reaction. How is that respecting?

And yes as tortoise says - for someone who so robustly defends the right of free speech, you sure take offence easily

No, not you, you're fine, I admire that post in fact, it's Biscuit I was talking about.

I addressed it in a kind, respectful manner, I didn't reply with a "Oh, that's wrong stupidass, try again!" I gave reason behind what I had to say. This is a discussion topic, to discuss this, you are insulting me, this is the opposite of discussion. Why are you here? I'm not defending Coca-Cola by the way, you all seem to have a lot of trouble understanding that. I don't think they should have done that, I've said that around 15 - 20 times, so please before you make an accusation of that kind, please know what you're talking about.

Also, respecting a viewpoint doesn't mean acknowledging it as valid. That would be called 'agreeing' with his viewpoint. Respecting and agreeing aren't the same thing, I would dare say. Also, though Coca-Cola should not have done what they did, it wasn't a malignant person attack toward another person, it was just a simple reference to a video that is a found gross. You, jumping the gun and calling me a twat, that's just not nice.

So you understand the point I'm making, then, that it's very easy to dismiss other people's emotional reactions as invalid/overreacting but you expect to have yours respected?

And you also agree that your feeling that others are overreacting about the scat porn is a "mere personal feeling"?

So would you agree that it follows that you are arguing an entirely subjective position, since you've given no justification for why your opinion (it's not harmful/upsetting/worth reacting to) is any more valid than ours (it is harmful/upsetting/worth reacting to)?

I would pour time into further research, but at this point, I can't say I care nearly enough to do so, so I'll have to admit it's a personal feeling. I don't feel that there is any validity and what you people are doing, and I would like to understand how it is any more valid, if mine isn't, as it just seems foolish to me.

Honestly, if I'm wrong, I would like to understand how you're right, is all. I can't prove my standpoint as valid, and nor can you, so what does that give us?

Chiabon, I want to go back to the "any normal 14 yo should be able to handle" (not quoting exactly.

I would possibly agree with you if it was a case of some 14 yo showing some other 14 year old something of the sort for the "thrill" of doing something forbidden

Now, I stuggle with the legitimity of pornography anyway but in the situation we are in with the Coke competition, some adults have decided it was alright to direct underage children towards scat pornography. That is what makes it so shocking not to mention than showing pornography to children (last time I checked a 14 yo is still a child legally) is a form of child abuse. So YABVU, people are very right to be outraged by it!

""What is child sexual abuse?

Sexual abuse of a child is any sexual act between an adult and a child, including penetration, intercourse, incest, rape, oral sex, and sodomy. Other examples include:

• Fondling - Touching or kissing a child's genitals, making a child fondle an adult's genitals.
• Violations of bodily privacy - Forcing a child to undress, spying on a child in the bathroom or bedroom. Exposing children to adult sexuality - Performing sexual acts in front of a child, exposing genitals, telling "dirty" stories, showing pornography to a child.
• Commercial exploitation - Sexual exploitation through child prostitution or child pornography.

Copied and pasted from here

Now I know that you will say "but they did not actually show it!" You are right, they did not but any reasonable adult will know that a any normal 14yo will google for more info therefore directly confronting an underage child to pornography (and inappropriate behaviour in this particular case, which also constitute emotional or psychological abuse).

Maybe in the US it is acceptable, I do not know, but it is certainly not here.

Fortunately, OP of other thread has enough safety feature on her pc to have avoided her daughter to be lead to see what they meant by the status they wrote for her. Other might not have been so lucky!

Oh and there is no exeption for "humourous" confrontation to pornography either.

I suppose I should ask, "Why react in such a manner" and "Why is it such a big deal?"

"Now, I stuggle with the legitimity of pornography anyway but in the situation we are in with the Coke competition, some adults have decided it was alright to direct underage children towards scat pornography."

Stop right there; please read what I've been saying in nearly all of my posts, I do not agree with Coca-Cola. They should not have done that, I'm discussing how it isn't as big of a deal as it was made to be, not that they should be allowed to do it.