New TMNT poster causes 9/11 controversy, removed.

@dccomicsrule2011: I never equated the two things. I was pointing out the flaw in the logic of "it's just a _______" statements.

"I didn't mean to kill that family of 5 when my drunk ass drove straight into their car. There was no ill intent. At the end of the day, that's all that matters, right?"

@jaken7: the "its just a" statement can be used when there's nothing wrong or dramatic. Killing a family is different than a poster.

Poster =/= killing a family

Poster =/= rape

@erik: It's an exploding tower and it says September 11. You don't have to be hyper-sensitive to see the association there.

@jayc1324: Huh?

@jaken7:

Oh my god!!!! Let's take this offensive bullsh!t viral!!

@jaken7: you keep comparing a poster to things like rape and killing a family of five.

Let's quite the crap now, my argument here doesn't fit that argument because the hypothetical drunk driver did in fact break the law and people died because of is irresponsibility and carelessness.

No ones dead here, no one broke the law here, neither is anyone being irresponsible or careless.

Try harder next time.

@jayc1324: No I don't.

@erik: What are you trying to accomplish?

Yes you do. You also have to have quite the imagination if you think a company is trying to make money off of a movie would intentionally try to cripple their movie's success.

@jaken7: so we're just going to forget about you comparing them then?

@erik: No you don't. I don't understand that second sentence.

I don't understand why people make a big deal about bullsh!t.

@jayc1324: I never did. Only pointed out how those types of arguments are based on flawed logic.

@dccomicsrule2011: Just pointing out the critical flaw in the type of argument you were using.

Also, I would in fact argue that the person behind this poster was being careless.

@jaken7: what types of arguments?

What are you trying to accomplish?

Eh, forgot a word . I could edit it in but I trust you have the intellect to fill the gaps yourself.

Ugh

From now on, all exploding bıildings are 9/11 references.

@jayc1324: The "it's just a ______" arguments and the "there was no ill intent so it shouldn't matter" arguments.

@consolemaster001: It says September 11 on the poster...

The only day of the year that cannot have a release date, or someone will pay!

@erik: I don't understand that second sentence.

No, how about the only day of the year that cannot have depictions of exploding towers?

@jaken7: they apply here. No one should be offended over a poster

@jayc1324: Right, because if you aren't offended by something, then no one should be.

You are incapable of inserting one word into a sentence yourself? Huh...

Right, because any exploding building must be a reference to 9/11.

What about the Titanic poster? Why did you not piss over that? I ask again, why not about the Independence Day poster? A building is clearly attacked in it.

@jaken7: you're getting upset over a poster.

How can this poster hurt you? Or anyone else?

My argument isn't flawed because it fits this particular discussion. Implying it to other things while consistently ignoring details and context is only you cherry picking and creating strawman arguments.

As I've said before, no one is broke the law, or did anything immoral. So yeah, try harder.

@darling_luna: I love you.

@erik: I guess so.

I wouldn't have a problem with a picture of an exploding building if it didn't have September 11 directly written on it. It isn't just the exploding building that I see as a reference to 9/11, it's that in tandem with the date itself.

I already answered you.

@jaken7: what's wrong with referencing 9/11? We've mentioned it quite a few times so far.

Your problem seems to be the poster referencing 9/11 and I don't see the problem..

@jayc1324: It's an insensitive, irrelevant reference.

@jaken7: how? What makes it different from any of the times we have mentioned it so far?

@jayc1324: What is your agenda here? You aren't going to convince me the poster wasn't in poor taste, so what are you actually going for?

@jaken7: I asked you a question first, do you have an answer or no? Clearly I am trying to figure out why you find it offensive, hence my question "Why is it offensive in this case, but not any of them dozens of times we have both mentioned it"

@jayc1324: I've already explained why I find it offensive.

If you can't see the difference between an analytical discussion and promotional material for a summer popcorn flick, then I can't bother with you.

@yourneighborhoodcomicgeek lol hey dude everytime I see that dog GIF I crack up and get creeped out at the same time. Like what the hell is wrong with him? That's not normal for a dog to not be remotely interested in food right in front of him lol.

@cuddlebear hey dude, what do you think about this topic?

@jaken7: but what's BAD about promotional material mentioning 9/11?

lol idk that dog is messed up. No idea why a dog would be like that.

@jayc1324: It wasn't crafted with a deft hand and it's for a movie that is completely irrelevant to 9/11. They weren't trying to reference it. Once they realized their mistake, they took it down.

People simply get upset about 9/11 more than other tragedies because it's more recent and closer to home for them. Harsh truth, but alot of people do not give genuine sh*ts about WWII, the Holocaust or Slavery (which is unfortunate).

In reality, WWII, the Holocaust and Slavery are all much worse than 9/11, by a considerable amount.

It's just the way it is.

Comicvine deleted my post before, for one reason or another. -_-

No, my arguments does not have a critical flaw; it works perfectly well in the context of this discussion.

You applying it to other situation entirely, is not only flawed but you also ignored several key factors in the before-mentioned argument, and cherry-picked it like no other, while creating strawmen arguments in the process.

At the end of the day, no law was broken, and no one was hurt with the poster, and no ill intent was meant by it. I stand by my opinion that people are as soft as tissue paper, and nothing you've stated in here is having me second guess it, in fact, you're only strengthening my feeling about it.

People are so sensitive lmao.

@jaken7: exactly.they weren't trying to mention it. So what's the issue? They didn't hurt anyone or break any law. Why does it upset you so much? Can you really not handle seeing a building explode with the date 9/11 on it?

lol it's a great GIF though. Haven't enjoyed an animal gif that much since the dramatic prairie dog lol

@jaken7: no, it isn't insensitive. The world isn't dandelions and people shouldn't cater to the idea that everyone is as soft as a teletubby. There are many things in this world that happen every day. What happened in 911 is a disaster, but those people's lives aren't more valuable than the thousand of people that die every day. What is insensitive is acting like something is more than it is, by using word play to make something sound worse than it is. If that picture was printed with September 1st, no one would question it, but since it has a noticeable date, make a deal about it that is completely unnecessary and sounds like a serious case of whining.

@dccomicsrule2011: I don't see how it would. I've proven that there are instances when a picture is more than "just a picture." Why is it any different in this case?

OK guy.

Are you privy to information that I'm not? How do you know no one was hurt by it? Unless you mean physical pain of course, because that's impossible to do with a digital image, and I haven't heard of anyone going around hitting people with a printed version of this poster. So if that's what you're talking about, then you're right.

@cable_extreme: You're right, if it said September 1st I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. Too bad that isn't the case.

Also, what kind of logic is "one thing doesn't matter because other similar things also happen?"

Lol @ me using word play. Am I seriously being painted as a tricksy villain using deception to get people to believe what I want them to believe? Because that's ridiculous.

@jaken7:

I don't see how it would. I've proven that there are instances when a picture is more than "just a picture." Why is it any different in this case?

Because you ignored several factors of what I said. Were laws broken? Was it immoral? Was it intentional? If not, my argument isn't flawed, your rebuttalis.

Are you privy to information that I'm not? How do you know no one was hurt by it? Unless you mean physical pain of course, because that's impossible to do with a digital image, and I haven't heard of anyone going around hitting people with a printed version of this poster. So if that's what you're talking about, then you're right.

If some one was really hurt by this, then they're softer then cotton, hence sensitive people. It's just a freaking poster. That wasn't intentional, wasn't immoral, and no laws were broken.

We might as well agree to disagree, because I'm not seeing anything but people whining like 5 year girls who got their loli-pop taken away on the playground.

@jaken7: you're mad over nothing. Its a poster.

Since when is mentioning 9/11 on a poster offensive.

@jaken7: Cause I'm a laugh a minute