So, offended by 100% of Hollywood movies and modern media then?
The idea of the ad makes some sense; the danger seems to outweigh the benefit. But art its often like that. And this shouldn't be censored.
I guess this is where we could point out how many of the same people who would only discuss Koran burning not on the reasons it's wrong, but only in terms of 'it's their right', are doing the opposite here, saying they don't like the ad, but not a word about 'it's their right'.
I am not sure about the Brits rights, but as far as here in America there is no way it should be censored. It is absolutely their right to run their batshit crazy add. You are right, there is no difference between this and Koran burning as far as "rights" are concerned.
I do a lot of skimming so perhaps I missed it but I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise.
Fixed that for you. I see you're a delicate flower, we'll do our best not to offend your dainty sensibilities.Pretending to blow up adults is one thing. However, pretending to blow up kids is fucking over the line and just shows the fanaticism of some of these eco groups.
My point on that was that the posters on the right, for the Koran burning, responded to the issue about why people should not to it, but dodging that and just arguing they 'have the right to do it', which no one had said otherwise - but on THIS issue where they disagree, not a word about 'they have the right', only their objections to it.
I'm not saying the right-wing posters said they don't have a right to do it, but that they only fixated on 'the right to do it' for the issue they agree with more.
"inevitable demise", "killing the planet", "longevity of the planet" !
Whoa dude, you really need to do some studying and research. The planet is not at risk, it's perfectly happy just chugging along doing it's own thing. It's NOT at risk. What in the world would make you think that the end of the world is approaching ? Any facts? Any? I didn't think so.
Of course the planet isnt at risk. It was here long before we showed up and shall be here long after we are gone.
The "green" movement is more concerned about maintaining conditions on the planet that will continue to support OUR life. The don't really mean "save the planet" when they say it, they really mean "save the environment that supports our life".
When it was first introduced in World War II, DDT was very effective in reducing malaria morbidity and mortality.[14] The WHO's anti-malaria campaign, which consisted mostly of spraying DDT, was initially very successful as well. For example, in Sri Lanka, the program reduced cases from about 3 million per year before spraying to just 29 in 1964. Thereafter the program was halted to save money, and malaria rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969. The country resumed DDT vector control, but the mosquitoes had acquired resistance in the interim, presumably because of continued agricultural use. The program switched to malathion, which though more expensive, proved effective.[18]
Today, DDT remains on the WHO's list of insecticides recommended for IRS (until alternatives are available)
"inevitable demise", "killing the planet", "longevity of the planet" !
Whoa dude, you really need to do some studying and research. The planet is not at risk, it's perfectly happy just chugging along doing it's own thing. It's NOT at risk. What in the world would make you think that the end of the world is approaching ? Any facts? Any? I didn't think so.
Of course the planet isnt at risk. It was here long before we showed up and shall be here long after we are gone.
The "green" movement is more concerned about maintaining conditions on the planet that will continue to support OUR life. The don't really mean "save the planet" when they say it, they really mean "save the environment that supports our life".
This is not 100% true. There are a lot of educated people out there who genuinely care about the human race, and I applaud them. Unfortunately, I think a significant percentage of environmentalists are uneducated and don't give a shit about humans. Look at the people who rallied to ban DDT use in Africa. They're a bunch of white middle or upper class Americans who think birds are more important than humans. Are they racists who don't care about black people, or are they just assholes who don't care about any people? Scientists who care about humans came to the opposite conclusion of whether or not DDT should be used - they think yes it should be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Overall_effectiveness_of_DDT_against_malaria
I'm not saying environmentalists are all racist idiots. I'm just saying be careful who you side with. Some people really do want humans to survive and have as little impact on the environment as possible (ie more efficient logging methods). Other people simply hate the human race and would rather see millions of humans go blind or die before they see a single panda bear die.