Resolved Question

Is the use of Hitler in advertising poor taste?

An Aids-awareness advert depicting Adolf Hitler having unprotected sex has been condemned by health charities.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_347…
The provocative commercial, which ends with the tag-line 'AIDS is a mass murderer', aims to scare young people into using condoms.

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Hitler definitely was evil, but Hitler is not a suitable example for not having protected sex at anytime. Bush II should be viewed as a good example for not having protected sex. And Dick Cheney... They are the most modern examples of what unprepared or unprotected couples can produce. Lol.

Sex education in schools, in places of worship, or whatever suitable place that this subject can be taught is the only hope here. Unfortunately. parents and religions do not always condone this. Yet, they have no problem with teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic because they want their children to be able to do the three R's right.

On the matter of this equally essential education, we are hypocrites.

28% 7 Votes

There are currently no comments for this question.

Other Answers (5)

• That full ad is like softcore porn.
  http://video.yahoo.com/watch/5930313/154…
  
  Anyways, comparing AIDS to Hitler is laughable. Only an idiot will be scared into wearing condoms (which suck and could send me on a rant about condoms and the sexual behavior of modern western society).

  12% 3 Votes
• Yes... and gross on several levels.... and it demonstrates a gross lack of moral character on the part of those responsible for producing, distributing, airing, such garbage

  24% 6 Votes
• Extremely poor taste in every way. And so ridiculous, no kid will take it seriously.

  12% 3 Votes
• Sounds good to me. Gets the point across and puts a despot in a bad light. What's wrong with that?

  12% 3 Votes
• I saw the ad.
  
  Haven't formed a judgment quite yet, which is rare for me.
  
  I realize that it takes a sledgehammer to cut through the clutter and get the attention of the target audience (who must be pretty dozey if they need to hear this message).
  
  Since when did health charities become critics of commercials?
  
  The commercial in question, could not possibly harm their work by making less kids wear condoms, so, what is their beef?
  
  Politics makes strange bedfellows. The health charities should welcome any help they can get, and keep their nuanced aesthetic cultural judgments to themselves.
  
  If they are 501 (c) (3) organizations, they are not allowed to get political. This expression hopefully is not made officially, but only as personal statements of taste. Their money should be spent on the program objectives specified in their tax exempt status application, and not to create a bullhorn so they can express themselves on aesthetic, cultural, and pedagogical themes.
  
  Stick to health. Make more of that. Leave off the arbitrary, desultory, and capricious judgments about the actions of others. Let 1000 flowers bloom in the sunshine. Let the marketplace of ideas be a true Bazaar of free expression.
  
  When things are done that "break the mold" and are strong, and possibly are artful, they always attract a mass of whingers, whiners, hand wringers, and wee wee'd up nudnicks. This ad may be artful or it may be gauche beyond the pale. But the fact that it's being criticized, by the health charities has no significance. What do they know? Why do they have standing to speak? Nobody likes having an interloper on their patch, especially a creative, edgy one who might show one us as a dullard and a hack. Again, I haven't formed a judgment about the ad -- I need to see it a couple of more times, and hear what the intended target audience is saying about it. Sometimes "far out" works -- I recall a certain Superbowl Ad, I think for Microsoft, that was plenty far out and edgy, and it did have an impact.
  
  What works is good (Jeremy Bentham)
  What works is true (John Dewey)
  
  Let's see how it works.

  Source(s):

  12% 3 Votes