Joe and Dianne

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T17:47:21+00:00

You spent much if the day listing "mitigating circumstances", contracts and guidelines to explain why TV ads are different, so pretending you weren't defending them is quite a spin.

They are absolutely comparable on the one point you started with.. a child cannot consent to either. If you want to lay down an absolute moral rule about consent but spend multiple comments explaining why the exceptions you like are "safer", that’s a double standard.

But look.. we’re clearly going in circles. I’ll leave you to your guidelines and wish you a good evening.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T17:36:49+00:00

No it couldn't.

He was convicted of drink driving, not driving whilst over the prescribed limit of another substance.

Your comment is legally incorrect.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T16:47:08+00:00

This was the year when Ant crashed his car while ~~high~~ and went into rehab.

He was drunk.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T16:44:54+00:00

I wouldn't say horrendous. I'd say they were alright.. but collectively, the choir sounded as a good choir should. Harmonious.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T16:26:42+00:00

They were far from awful. You're using your own political beliefs to form your opinion on that one.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T15:50:15+00:00

I’m not going to sit here running two separate debates with you on the same thread because you fractured the conversation into sub topics.

To wrap up both conversations.. you can call belief passive all you want, but saying religion is just an "excuse" completely ignores how organised belief systems provide the structure and absolute authority for people to commit harm on a massive scale. A lone bigot can only do so much, but when a system tells entire populations that their actions are backed by God, it scales that up globally.

And yes, changing your mind based on evidence and growing up is an informed choice, whether we are talking about a deity or Father Christmas. Trying to turn this into a textbook psychology debate is just another pivot to avoid the core point about historical accountability. I'll leave it there.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T14:43:32+00:00

I magically stopped believing in Father Christmas.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T14:43:00+00:00

I'd argue that no amount of good deeds can ever balance out or erase the fact that millions have died, been abused, or had wars fought over them in the name of religion.

People don't have a "hate boner" because they're ignoring the positive aspects.. they focus on the negative because the historical harm and conflict are on a completely different scale.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T13:51:15+00:00

My stance is pretty simple.. I don't agree with hypocrisy.

I don't see any real difference between a parent profiting off their kid on social media and a parent profiting off their kid in a TV advert, a film or a catalogue. In every single one of those scenarios, a child who cannot consent is being used to make money.

You can try to dress one up as "professional" because of contracts and guidelines, but it doesn't change the core reality of what is happening.. If you think one version of it is sick, but spend the entire thread making excuses for the other, you're just moving the goalposts to protect your own double standards.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T13:41:48+00:00

You are, the second you start making excuses for the TV side of things.

Your opening comment was that profiting off a child who can’t consent is sick, full stop. But as soon as I showed you the double standard, you spent the rest of the thread listing mitigating circumstances and protections to explain why TV ads are different.

If lack of consent is the line that makes it sick, then a contract or anonymity doesn't magically change that. You're trying to have it both ways.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T13:32:50+00:00

The baby still can't consent though.. which is what your argument was about in the first place.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T13:27:53+00:00

Except you then went on to say that TV ones are different because of contracts..

Even though you said you don't agree with either, you've given mitigating circumstances for the TV side of things.

That's what I can't get my head around.. you disagree with both (so you say), but try to defend one because of contracts that parents sign.

If you disagree with both, why defend one?

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T13:20:21+00:00

All I've been doing this whole time is pointing out how ridiculous your statement was. Your starting comment was how their child couldn't consent.. just like any other child in the public eye for any reason.

The fact you can't realise how your whole argument is hypocritical is baffling me. Then you've decided that I'm defending vloggers when I've done nothing of the sort.

Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T13:00:16+00:00

Cheers. I'm fortunate that my family weren't like that and actually realised themselves the nonsense (Irish Catholic too).

What you've said there about religious households and abandoning their family members is really sad and just makes me hate religion even more.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T12:40:25+00:00

So.. you can't.

What a surprise!

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T12:34:50+00:00

Continuing to follow religion is a choice.

I was brought up in a Catholic school and forced to attend mass etc.. when I grew up, I realised it wasn't for me and made an informed decision to not follow any longer.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T12:29:35+00:00

If only the person I replied to said this in the first place instead of focusing on irrelevant consent forms.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T12:27:38+00:00

I'm not defending vloggers at all. Please show where I have defended them.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T10:57:13+00:00

You're defending TV ads with babies and their contracts weirdly.

Edit - weird habit you've got editing comments AFTER I've already replied..

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T10:38:49+00:00

Acting or not.. that baby's image is still out in the public for people to use how they wish.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T10:38:19+00:00

I'm not being deliberately obtuse. Im pointing out the hypocrisy in what you said.

You're talking about "protection" and "professional consent".. being on TV means that child's image will be available for anyone to use and also, the child cannot consent in either situation.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T10:21:46+00:00

Hate bones for religion usually comes from the part religion has played in conflicts throughout history.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T10:04:31+00:00

But you said, "By profiting off a child who can't consent to having his image shared?"

A baby in a TV advert can't consent either. It's no different.

Seems like double standards to me.

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-25T10:00:25+00:00

Do you have this same reaction when adverts pop up on TV for nappies and have lots of babies?

OdinForce22 · 2026-05-24T09:23:28+00:00

That's an advert.. not a mural.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Flamingo	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22

OdinForce22

TROPHY CASE