Quote:
Originally Posted by sully1410
The jets organization cares about backwards hats...but no one has said anything to Big Dipper yet? Nuts.
I think your missing my point. My point is chewing tobacco seems to be a ridiculous thing to take a stand for when, if negative exposure is something that parent is worried about, there are so many other worse things that most people do-nothing about. Whether it be in TV or movies or video games or even commercials on TV(namely every single commercial with sexual innuendo or commercials that make men look like scruffy, dim witted cavemen that only survive because they happen to be married to a much smarter beautiful wife- so all of them). That is the stuff that people should be worried about. Not something minor like chew.
Also, I've always suspected that Oscar was a stoner. He seems more calm and nice since I was a kid.
|
I understand your point. My point is if there is a parent out there who is diligient about what they allow their young children to watch. Who does ensure that their kids only watch thigns appropriate for their age and maturity, then they should decide when they feel their kids are mature enough to be exposed to tabbacco use and the discussion involving it. The NHL shouldn't make a parent decide only to allow their children to watch hockey if they're also ok with them being exposed to tabacco use. Tabacco advertizing is illegal in sporting events in Canada. Tabacco companies only exist cause they prey on minors as virtually all smokers began smoking when they were a minor. I'm not trying to say no kids should be exposed to this. That no kids should even play violent video games or watch questionable tv. I'm saying that as a parent they should be able to decide when their children are exposed to this stuff and allowing them to watch a hockey game shouldn't be the same as allowing them to be exposed to tabacco use imo. I don't feel its a reasonable correlation. The league makes players wear suits to games, wear their hats on the right way so I don't think its reasonably expected that they would allow a player to have a wad of tabacco in his mouth.
I wouldn't even see an issue with it if the league was compeltely lax. If players could wear whatever they wanted, they wouldn't get fined for saying "sloppy seconds" in an interview etc etc. If that were the case I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to think a player would interview with tabacco in their mouth. But the league implements all these rules on player behaviour, fines for innapppropraite remarks in an interview, brands itself as family friendly. Because of these things I think the Sesame Street argument holds.
Baisically I think it's inappropriate and should be stopped cause it doesn't fit in the context of the programming that the NHL presents and is not something that should be reasonably expected. It's all well and good that most kids are exposed to worse, I don't think that's really relavant to the way I see as why it's not appropriate.
. As for the kids- I have a family- if they would have noticed this I would have taken the opportunity to make a lesson out of it and hope they learned something.
