Concerned Parent! HORRIBLE Nintendo Slogan!

[GB]

Why not just educate them in general instead of using an ad that they might never even see as an example?

Why does it have to be one or the other?

How about a discussion like this...Hey kids, there is an ad on TV right now that I wanted you to be aware of. it says "touching is good". I want to make sure you know that there are also bad touches and not to be afraid to tell an adult if anyone touches you in a bad way.

Why would that be a bad idea Phinz? the ad is out there. Why pretend that it is not. Why not be proactive in teaching and protecting our children instead of being reactive?

 

[phinz]

I understand where you're coming from. I do believe that if you're teaching your kids how to discern between advertising and reality that this won't be an issue to start out with.

I still want to know what show this ad was associated with.

 

[corazon]

I am sure her kids have friends. I am willing to bet that at least one of those friends had a TV. Just because they do not have a TV at home does not mean they will not be exposed to this.

That is what educating our children is all about. I would hardly call that counter productive. Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending this type of thing does not exist or is not offensive is more counter productive then telling our children that a slogan like this is giving the wrong message and that they need to be careful and report any bad touch.

Well said, GB.
Also, even if we don't have a television and most likely my kids won't be exposed to all distasteful commercials doesn't mean it is okay with me that other kids are exposed to them.

 

[Raven]

Why not just educate them in general instead of using an ad that they might never even see as an example?

I would like to know, though, what show was being watched when the ad came on.

They've been somewhat carpet boming the ad on various shows so I don't remember what shows were being watched when I saw them, but isn't it odd that they never advertised the game system, only the game, leaving us to wonder what such a slogan could possibly mean.

The problem with this ad is that we HAVE been educating our children for many years now, and this ad is counter-indicitive of that teaching. It would be like someone coming out with the slogan "Just Say Yes".

~ Raven~

 

[phinz]

http://www.touchingisgood.com/

Don't worry. It's not a site that will get you in trouble at work. It's owned by Nintendo DS. They had a contest to come up with videos. Several are pretty clever.

 

[buckytom]

ok, now i am offended!

was that one created by icelandic film school grads on acid?

and just to prove that it is intended to trigger a verboten type response, there's a quick flash of a woman unzipping her blouse just a few seconds in. and then it continues with images of young girls, older men, and inferences of both pleasure and frustration.

hey, i've got a new slogan. nintendo ds... games for child pornographers.

 

[phinz]

Which one? There are about 20 or 30 on there. They were created by people entering the contest. Nintendo didn't create them.

 

[buckytom]

oh, sorry, it was the one that showed up cued on the page. it starts off with the manekin hand in a bunch of canteloupes.

a direct quote from the site : "touching is: thrilling, exciting, fun, weird, interesting. Sometimes a bit taboo. It's how we connect - with each other, the stuff around us and now, our games..."

a bit taboo? this is a classic example of pushing immoral ideas on kids, just to picque their rebellious/natural curiosity, in the end to drive up sales. they are making connections between deriving adult pleasure from tactile senses, and a video game. not exactly material for children.

i know, i know, who determines morality. well, touch my kid and i'll let you know...

 

[phinz]

And you well should. I don't think a jury would convict, either. I know *I'd* hang the jury if they were trying to find you guilty.

The website itself seems to be driven toward teenagers and young adults, not "kids."

I honestly think it's a clever tagline, and some of the commercials are pretty clever too. The guy throwing fruit at his roommate is hysterical. At the same time, I can see where the issues are. If the commercials ran during, say, Drawn Together, it wouldn't be objectionable afaiac, but if it ran, say, during a Care Bears rerun, well, there would definitely be a problem.

 

[buckytom]

man, protecting and edumacating your kids is a non-stop job, huh?

i guess, just like everything else, ya have to constantly keep talking to them, explaining what they don't (or shouldn't yet) understand. but you also have to listen to them, to see what things are influencing them.

it still stinks of double entendre sleaze, imo, aimed at those who are curious about but still shouldn't be having to deal with sleaze.

let's blur the line for them a little more.

 

[phinz]

That line's been blurred for millenia. It's just that we're exposed to it in a more forceful way these days if we experience any media exposure whatsoever.

Parenting is, and should be, a full-time job in itself. Only you can engender your kids with the way things should be. It takes a village? Nope. It takes a parent that actually cares, and even then your kids will do what they please in the end, because that's part of growing up.

 

[-DEADLY SUSHI-]

Your child *might* grow up to be an axe murderer. Should we lock them up based on "might?" "Might be negative" is a *really* broad brush to be painting with.

Your logic is flawed. We arest people that are drunk behind the wheel. Why? Because they are very likely to cause an accident. I understand where you are comming from. But logically it is not sound.

 

[buckytom]

i think deadly sushi is a witch.


bring me wood and oil!!!!!!

 

[Raven]

That line's been blurred for millenia. It's just that we're exposed to it in a more forceful way these days if we experience any media exposure whatsoever.

Parenting is, and should be, a full-time job in itself. Only you can engender your kids with the way things should be. It takes a village? Nope. It takes a parent that actually cares, and even then your kids will do what they please in the end, because that's part of growing up.

This is true, I totally agree with your views of parenting, but as parent's we we have enough bad influences to do battle with without having our TV making our job all the more difficult.

Our daugther picked up the phrase "Well DUH!" from Michelle in Full House, a program which I believed, up till then, a nice family oriented program, but when it came time to break our daughter of a disgusting habit that she picked up from TV, her rebuttal was "If it's not nice then why do they put it on TV?". She just couldn't grasp the simple concept that sometimes they put bad things on TV, even in otherwise good shows. After that she was not allowed to watch Full House anymore, and we quit watching after that as well.

The problem was that the producers of Full House gave into something that they believed would be a cutsy catch-phrase to boost ratings, without thinking of the consequences of their actions. This is an all too common experience among media agencies today. They seem to be completely out of touch with the real world. Statistics and demographic studies never tell the whole story.

I'm trying to remember the exact program where I saw these commercials, my daughter got me hooked on Ed, Edd and Eddy (Cartoon Network) and Spongebob Squarepants (Nickelodeon) so it might have been one of these, not sure.

The good news though is that since everyone has started writing to Nintendo, I haven't seen the commercial advertised in this area anymore where I was seeing it several times a day, so I'm wondering if they've pulled it?

~ Raven ~

 

[phinz]

Your logic is flawed. We arest people that are drunk behind the wheel. Why? Because they are very likely to cause an accident. I understand where you are comming from. But logically it is not sound.

No, it's not. Your example isn't the same as the statement I made. We arrest people that are drunk behind the wheel because it is illegal to drink and drive. The law was passed because it is dangerous to drink and drive, but we did not arrest people for drinking and driving before the law was passed.

The effect of being arrested for DUI is predicated by the cause of the law disallowing driving while intoxicated, *not* by the fact that drinking and driving is dangerous. The effect of the law being passed was predicated by the determination that drinking and driving were dangerous.

You can't arrest someone based on what they might do. You can arrest them for what they do if it is contrary to the law. If the law states you can't drink and drive, then you can be arrested. If the law does *not* state that you can't drink and drive, you can't be arrested legally. That's the difference. The logic is completely sound.

 

[buckytom]

You can't arrest someone based on what they might do.

you can if there's sufficient evidence that they are planning to commit a crime. but that is very tough to make stick.

 

[phinz]

And that would only be based on a law that says that you can be arrested for what you are planning, not act of "might" do it.

If it's illegal to plan a bombing of a public place, you will be arrested for conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, or whatever law exists to make the planning illegal. The actual crime is the planning, or conspiracy to commit the acts, not the possibility that you might carry through with those acts. Those are two separate things. Making it illegal to "might do" is too close to having Thought Police for my comfort.

 

[-DEADLY SUSHI-]

No, it's not.

Yes..... it IS!!!

 

[buckytom]

phinz, did you ever work for the clinton administration?

lol, slick phinz...

 

[phinz]

Nah. I just wrote Op/Ed pieces for the newspaper. I also have spent a lot of time debating law, free speech, individual rights, et cetera. I'm a registered Libertarian and a firm believer in individual rights. My political views have changed over the years (I voted for Clinton twice and Bush once. I voted Libertarian last time) and I grow more and more distrustful of the "general public" and their own arbitrary morality compass as I see more and more people squalling about how their feelings were hurt or their sensibilities were offended.

The fact of the matter is, we cannot arrest people based on what they "might" do. We can only arrest them for what is illegal. It's not illegal to drink. We "might" get in the car and drive, though. Should we be pre-emptively arrested before we ever get in the car? No. We are only arrested when we do drink and drive, because the act of driving drunk is the illegal act, not the act of "might" kill somebody while driving drunk. If the act of "might" kill somebody while driving drunk was illegal we wouldn't have bars, convenience stores, restaurants with liquor licenses or package stores, because somebody "might" drink alcohol and drive.

Don't like the fact that advertising "might" influence children or "might" be taken in a negative manner? Great. Scream all you want. But don't be surprised, and don't protest, when somebody infringes on your life because they perceive that you "might" do something they find offensive/negative, though it may seem perfectly acceptable to you.

Again, to me, variety truly is the spice of life, and I love the variety I find here. I value everybody's opinion, no matter how misguided it might be.