Reebok degrading woman w new campaign

MuddyGirl wrote:

MuddyGirl wrote:

It's for girls who have more than one girl partner.

And as such, a total turn on.

The chick in the poster looks pretty beefy for a girl.

The company is run by miss aligned Germans that have little understanding of a global picture let alone ad campaign.The german prevalent sexist attitude is they really dont give a damn of who or how the offend , they are always right.

OK, so you answered my question (see below). Not quite sure why you couldn't have answered it the first time around.

Still, for me, I don't give a flying F. And I am pretty sure that such ads do not "(dig) into (my) subconscious mind and (exert) a subtle control on (my) buying habits. Although I must admit that there are many for whom this is not true.

********************

Actually, I'm not offended at all.

Seriously, are any of you? Who gives a flying F what some ad says. It's of zero importance in my life.

Hard to believe some dope in a suit got paid to write that.

Track Pirate wrote:

Hard to believe some dope in a suit got paid to write that.

Advertising is dominated by women and gay men.

Not Easily Offended wrote:

Still, for me, I don't give a flying F. And I am pretty sure that such ads do not "(dig) into (my) subconscious mind and (exert) a subtle control on (my) buying habits. Although I must admit that there are many for whom this is not true.

Ah, the age-old "others may be sensitive to X, but not me" argument. See

In much the same way, 93% of american drivers consider themselves above average drivers.

gramthlete wrote:

Not Easily Offended wrote:

Still, for me, I don't give a flying F. And I am pretty sure that such ads do not "(dig) into (my) subconscious mind and (exert) a subtle control on (my) buying habits. Although I must admit that there are many for whom this is not true.

Ah, the age-old "others may be sensitive to X, but not me" argument. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

In much the same way, 93% of american drivers consider themselves above average drivers.

Ah, the moronic "what is true for some must be true for all argument." See

In much the same way, 91% of American males think that ALL males cheat on their significant others since they, themselves do.

I thought that by showing a picture of a hot guy, and encouraging people to cheat on their girlfriend, Reebok is telling closeted homosexuals who have a beard (i.e. girlfriend) that the easiest way to find a partner for their illicit homo-erotic affair is look for someone wearing Reebok apparel.

Just figured I'd check in and see what you morons are yammering about. Nothing of course. Carry on, idiots.

Not Easily Offended wrote:

Ah, the moronic "what is true for some must be true for all argument." See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron

In much the same way, 91% of American males think that ALL males cheat on their significant others since they, themselves do.

Well, you've run out of argument and have resorted to attacking your interlocutor. That's what's referred to as an ad hominem argument, and coupled to your made_up statistic concerning infidelity, just shows you to be childish.

"Not easily offended", eh? You may look into changing your nick now.

Actually it's brilliant. They can't say "Cheat on your Taxes..." because that's illegal. The slogan is just emphasizing how important your workout should be to you (and thus how important Reebok thinks it is). And (and this is the brilliant part), it's incendiary enough to get people talking, and that gets the word out. This ad was mentioned on The Tonight Show last night. Talk about free publicity.

Whose ad was this? Reebok! You said so in the subject of the thread. More free publicity. Brilliant of them.

gramthlete wrote:

Not Easily Offended wrote:

Ah, the moronic "what is true for some must be true for all argument." See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron

In much the same way, 91% of American males think that ALL males cheat on their significant others since they, themselves do.

Well, you've run out of argument and have resorted to attacking your interlocutor. That's what's referred to as an ad hominem argument, and coupled to your made_up statistic concerning infidelity, just shows you to be childish.

"Not easily offended", eh? You may look into changing your nick now.

You are a comedian, no?

You make baseless accusations with absolutely nothing to back them up to attack someone on here and then post "you've run out of argument and have resorted to attacking your interlocutor". I would say that this is quite amusing. But truly it is too lame for such praise.

What you have done is what's referred to as mindless conjecture and coupled with your inability to see what is obvious just shows that indeed you are a moron. This is not an argument. Simply a statement of fact.

Well, my little friend, you are fortunate that I am indeed Not Easily Offended. Otherwise your exposure as one with very little brain would be far harsher.

Not Easily Offended wrote:

You are a comedian, no?

You make baseless accusations with absolutely nothing to back them up to attack someone on here and then post "you've run out of argument and have resorted to attacking your interlocutor". I would say that this is quite amusing. But truly it is too lame for such praise.

What you have done is what's referred to as mindless conjecture and coupled with your inability to see what is obvious just shows that indeed you are a moron. This is not an argument. Simply a statement of fact.

Well, my little friend, you are fortunate that I am indeed Not Easily Offended. Otherwise your exposure as one with very little brain would be far harsher.

You do know what a personal attack is, don't you? We were discussing the ad, its importance (or lack thereof), subliminality in advertising, etc. and you choose to focus on me.

You've now called me a moron, twice. You've stated that I'm unable to see the obvious, have a little brain, and would be amusing if I wasn't lame.

To what purpose? You either wish to contribute to the discussion, or wish for it to end. This being the internet, you can simply go to another thread, site, or medium.

So what's your goal? To have the final word? And yet you maintain that you're Not Easily Offended.

gramthlete wrote:

You do know what a personal attack is, don't you? We were discussing the ad, its importance (or lack thereof), subliminality in advertising, etc. and you choose to focus on me.

You've now called me a moron, twice. You've stated that I'm unable to see the obvious, have a little brain, and would be amusing if I wasn't lame.

To what purpose? You either wish to contribute to the discussion, or wish for it to end. This being the internet, you can simply go to another thread, site, or medium.

So what's your goal? To have the final word? And yet you maintain that you're Not Easily Offended.

My goal? What an interesting question.

How about we start with your goal in writing, "I submit for your attention that you *are* offended", based upon your seemingly transcendent ability to know the mindset of others.

Was this to display your obvious omniscience? My guess would have been that one of such God-like powers would have no need for such a shallow display. So, pray tell, what was your goal?

Not Easily Offended wrote:

My goal? What an interesting question.

How about we start with your goal in writing, "I submit for your attention that you *are* offended", based upon your seemingly transcendent ability to know the mindset of others.

Was this to display your obvious omniscience? My guess would have been that one of such God-like powers would have no need for such a shallow display. So, pray tell, what was your goal?

I wouldn't have talked about you personally had you not brought yourself into the subject by stating that you were not offended and that "who gives a sh1t...". My point was that ads (much like internet conversations, apparently) can be offensive whether we like it or not, by the immense weight of the subtext (what is implied versus what is said).

That would be the point at which you flew off the proverbial handle. You've now traded fiery diatribe for cold sarcasm ("transcendent ability", "omniscience"). But you see, you made your personal experience (whether you are affected or not by ads) part of the discussion by citing it. How can you then be angry that the focus turns to it?

Now, I wasn't demeaning your personal experience. I was calling attention to the fact that people thinking they are oblivious to advertising are succumbing to a cognitive bias (this is as true of me as of you - it's a human bias, not your character flaw). This is a well-researched fact that I previously pointed to in the wikipedia link (illusory superiority).

At no time did I mention my own experience. I really don't know how much my buying habits are influenced by advertising, but I hasten to add that I'd be delighted to know.

I don't think I have God-like powers, or omniscience. I don't know where you got that from. I don't think I'm a moron, either. But if I was a moron, your calling me one would be hurtful and callous.

Now that we're discussing personal experience, though, I will put out there that the last shoes I purchased were Puma FAAS 300's. I read on runningtimes that they were a solid substitute to the Brooks Green Silence that I'd been wearing and that I found to be lacking in durability. Was my choice a rational one? I'd like to think so. On the other hand, the letsrun site had a heavy Puma FAAS campaign (the giveaway). I suspect that I subconsciously took this to be an endorsement of the shoe by people in the know.

So there: if you want to attack me personally, you can use that fact right there. Feel free to do so: this is the internet and every man and woman's right to write what they want.