It’s a known fact that kids and even adults love Oreos. For those who don’t know what that is, it’s a chocolate cookie with cream in the middle (oh so yummy). But on the 25th of this month, the Oreos page on Facebook have recently posted a picture with a pride Oreo. My first reaction (of course) was that I wanted to go to my local liquor store and grab a box, but when I read the comments, it really got to me. Many people (mainly Christains) began commenting that it’s sinful and started putting verses of the bible in the comments and it really got to me when I read one comment saying its lustful. Of course I laughed but then realized ‘what’s the big deal?’ of course it’s not healthy to eat them everyday but lustful? Sinful? Have any of you seen this and if so what was your reaction? Also do you think it’s wrong to put in a picture of a pride Oreo?
I am not sure you are serious with this question, but I’ll bite.
Most people find it offensive that an organization uses it’s product to promote a sexually deviant lifestyle. I wouldn’t call it lustful, just unbridled.
The picture of the Oreo would be great if it was done as a real rainbow tribute and not a misuse of the rainbow to forward the “gay” agenda.
Sadly, I would disagree with your choice of “most”. That’s no longer the case. Maybe use something like “righteous” or “sane”.
Well, I haven’t seen any of the pictures and promotionals, and I probably won’t look. For me, Oreos have the same effect as porn has on most teenaged boys–I can’t walk away from them, I can’t eat just a few. If I buy a package of Oreos I will eat the entire package, three rows of cookies, all within a few hours. I will probably be just a little sick to my stomach, but I would do it again the next day.
The only other food that has this effect on me is pizza, and so I buy it as little as possible. But Oreos definitely has to be THE trigger food for a mindless binge. I literally have no power over this food.
So I actually see the point of equating Oreos with lust and deviance. Obviously eating several thousand calories of sweets is deviant behavior. I have no idea whether God considers eating a package of Oreos to be equally serious as men having sex with other men and women having sex with other women. I would think not, but OTOH, the Bible says that sex sin affects our own bodies, and so does overeating.
In a way, I’m grateful that Oreos has taken this approach to promoting their product. In the past, Oreos has presented a charming, homegrown FAMILY image, in which Grandpa sits with his little grandson and the two of them eat a small saucer of Oreos and milk while chatting about life. HAH! What a cruel joke! Why don’t they show film of an overweight young woman stuffing herself sick with a whole box of Oreos?
The charming family-centered promotional campaign has the effect on me of making me feel that Oreos are “safe” and “wholesome.” I feel that eating them makes me more “family-centered” and “decent” and “small-town.” Again, this is all pure rot, a fantasy world. But that’s what Oreos is counting on! The LAST thing they want to do is advertise the addictive properties of their cookies, and yes, according to Dr. Kessler’s book, certain foods can be highly addictive. Oreos WANTS the consumers to believe that their cookies are the same as Grandpa and small towns and innocence.
So now that Oreos has “come out” so to speak and admitted that their product is decadent, and is kind of using their product to promote sin, it will actually be easier for me to resist buying it, as I don’t tend to knowingly buy products that are blatently pushing a pro-homosexual agenda.
It has been suggested that one will have a lonely life if one boycotts all the products promoting “gay pride” these days. I found one website which showed images of companies who participated in San Francisco’s “pride” parade - Miller Beer, Google, Facebook, Wells Fargo.
It seems to me that for most companies, supporting “gay pride” is just a smart business decision. If you put on a show of being “gay-friendly” then you can only expand your potential market, particularly to individuals who might seek out companies just because they are “gay-friendly”. It seems to me that the utterly trivial backlash of a few offended Christians boycotting the business can be tolerated if one’s market is thus expanded in that manner.
And frankly, it doesn’t seem to be a big deal to me. If a company is supporting abortion, that may be a serious matter. Money going to murder the unborn, that is not a cause I can get behind. It might be worth our while to boycott companies which support abortion. But a company that supports “gay pride”? It seems comparatively harmless. Putting on a “gay pride” image does not necessarily mean that the company is actively lobbying for the gay agenda. It could be argued that an activist company aggressively supporting gay marriage may be the target of boycott. But a mere “gay pride” image only means that the company is being smart in their marketing. To me it means very little about the moral fiber of the product itself.
Perhaps we would make a larger splash if we, as Christians, got together and resolved to support companies which were Christian-friendly. Those that refused to support immoral causes, or portray immorality in their advertisements, and those that supported morally acceptable charities and political goals. I think that if we focused on positive support for such companies rather than poorly-organized boycotts of dubious ones, we would make a stronger financial impact. But it’s probably just a pipe dream, because when can Christians agree on anything at all?
They’re not actually coming out with rainbow Oreos.
Oreo felt they had too many customers, and I suppose this was the best way to drive some off including myself. There’s no need for a biscuit company to go politicaL
I had the same reaction. Pride nonsense aside, a rainbow oreo has tremendous appeal! I do wish the whole gay pride movement could have found a different symbol, though. I can’t drive past a preschool without making that association, now!
I’m trying to imagine this as a commercial. I don’t think it would go well for them.
There are no promotionals to look at, other than one image on their Facebook page. It showed an Oreo cookie, but instead of a single layer of white filling, it had several layers of filling, each one a different collor. Together the layers formed a rainbow spectrum. Underneath the image was a single word: “Pride.”
As someone else noted, such a cookie is not being made. It was simply an attempt to be clever while giving a shout out to the gay community, this being Pride Month.
June is also Adopt a Shelter Cat Month, which might be a more appealing holiday. However, I hope Nabisco doesn’t make a cat flavored Oreo cookie. :eek:
June is the Month of the Sacred Heart.
This was a blatant example of propaganda. They have decided to promote deviant behavior, and by doing that, they have hurt their reputation.
Once again, this is pure propaganda to get Americans to think wrongly. The point is, it’s not about a cookie, it’s about promoting and normalizing an agenda.
I will be just fine not buying real Oreos and not shopping at certain stores that officially promote the agenda.
I’m thinking a Sacred Heart Oreo might be a tad disrespectful.
Indeed. Sadly, there are those who do so that they would avoid getting boycotts. However, they would still get boycotts.
And no one ever suggests that anyone boycott computers, Artificial Intelligence, and the entire field of computer science, advances in which were possible due to the work of Alan Turing. (Not to mention he saved millions of lives by cracking the Enigma code.)
Turing was famously gay.
But, last time I checked, he was not a homosexualist.
Could you clarify to me what exactly a homosexualist is please? Turing lived before homosexuality was decriminalised in the UK. Indeed when the young man he was having a sexual affair with subsequently broke into his home and his homosexuality came up before the court he himself received a sentence which involved chemical castration as he was given that as an option instead of going to jail. He would therefore given his work and his positions with British military intelligence etc. over the years have been unlikely to be pushing for public celebration of homosexuality if that is what you are characterising a homosexualist as been for.
Homosexualists are people who are pushing for public celebration of homosexuality by any and all means necessary. Turing therefore, was not a homosexualist.
From experience, I can confidently say that there are heterosexuals who are homosexualists.
Oh, and this thread says an answer for Jharek’s current question.