Because a musical CD contained profanity while labeled by both pictures and words as being for children Wal-Mart has refused to continue to sell it. Thank goodness.

Per the article:

"The CD cover shows four smiling young children surrounded by balloons looking up at the camera. On the back it reads: "Your kids will love these versions of today's biggest hits, reinterpreted especially for them."...

"Wilson said she assumed the children pictured on the CD would be singing, but the voices on the recording belong to adults. At least two of the songs contain profanities and others aren't suitable for children, she said...just the way they referred to women..."

Atheists need to be on the good side of the Wal-Mart decision in oder to not accommodate the desires of many theists to stigmatize us as malign decadent degenerated sociopaths.

http://new.music.yahoo.com/various-artists/news/wal-mart-stops-sell...

http://www.walmart.com/ip/15049591

Tags: Children, Jubinsky, Profanity, Wal-Mart

Views: 117

Replies to This Discussion

Very very respectfully Wal-Mart does not stand to be sued for allowing someone to steal something and I don't care to discuss this any more.
That's their reasoning though, based on what they told their associates, so you are incorrect.  Your inability to want to discuss this makes me doubt your credentials as a humanist.
I will discus this if you discuss the hypothetical.

 You don't want to talk about the actual subject of the thread you created.

 

Gotcha.

I will discuss that if you discuss the hypothetical.

I didn't bring up the hypotheticals.  YOU brought up Wal-Mart, and now that the discussion isn't going the way you want, you wish to move the goal posts.

Nice try. My conscience is clear about leaving this discussion. Best of luck to you.

I'm sure your conscience is clear.   Wouldn't doubt that for a minute.

There is nothing "sacred" nor religious about my value system it is simply based on the golden rule. If you look at my home page you will see that I am nothing more than a Secular Humanist.

By and large what I encountered was evasiveness and I would also say defensiveness in response to the simple moral question (which I even posed hypothetically for the sake of discussion) of whether it is ethical to sell profanity under the label of children's material. By now I'm sure you thoroughly understand that I do not think it is. I certainly understand that my position was upsetting to some. I reserve the right to suspect that it was because they disagreed with it.

Carol: I have never meant nor do I mean now to disrespect you. Is there a major problem with us exchanging ideas? You have volunteered that you see nothing wrong with having sex in a crowded park. We could talk about the ins and outs of this (no pun intended).

My last comment to you posed another question that we could discuss. How do you feel about sexual molestation of a child by an adult even with parental approval? I honestly don't know how you feel about it. I certainly think it is wrong parental approval or not. If you feel the same way you could simply say so and that would end the discussion. If you don't we could kick it around.

The Wal-Mart matter has been beaten to death. How about these new topics?

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service