Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Yes, she should. She is not a good role model for children.
Who is?
Hilary Duff was when she was on Disney.
Don't care.
But I'd leave that up to Disney. Since she's still a massive profit engine for them, I doubt you'll see her getting booted off anytime soon. If parents and children weren't interested or were not following her with obsessive support, she wouldn't matter and they'd get rid of her.
I don't know. She kind of reminds me of Paris Hilton. That's another one.
If you want to get rid of such people and think them vapid and unpleasant influences, the best way is to not pay attention to them in the first place. You don't get to choose who influences someone else, but if in the aggregate enough people stopped caring about the fortunes and misfortunes of someone, they will stop being a nuisance upon your conscience and an influence upon children.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1406329/hilary_duff…
That Hilary Duff? Every teenage woman/girl who is in the public eye is sexually charged by media. There isn't a way around that in our present culture. Deal with it in your own private way but don't worry so much about how or whether it is a negative influence on others or their children. Censorship of a sort by silencing particular attitudes, behaviors, and views that we happen to disagree with is, in the main, more damaging to a society than any one person's mishaps and misfortunes.
Disney is a business. If people didn't care about Cyrus or Duff or any other person they hired, perhaps even if it was because they found disagreement in their behavior (even private behavior outside of Disney's control and scope to portray), than that person could be removed as they are no longer profitable for them to employ or will at worst receive a reduced role (and thus less influence).
I understand from the parent's point-of-view, but the parents nowadays with technology, don't know what the kid is doing all the time. A simple search on Google is just as effective as watching something on television or seeing something in person. I read in an article somewhere that she intentionally put inappropriate photographs of her on the Internet. All the kid has to do is a quick Google search I'm sure.
And this is important why? There's a lot worse things you can find with a Google search online than some racy imagery of a teen idol. Of more concern is that this is a sort of lazy, I want government or industry to protect me from outside influences that I disapprove of, including those acting on my children. That's your responsibility or decision as a parent to make those choices about filtering society for your own child. Not for everyone else's. If you don't want your kid to spend time obsessing over Ms Cyrus, find something else to occupy their time. There's always an exit clause in choosing to be influenced by some popular figure and choosing instead to be occupied in some other task or interest.
You're obviously not a parent then. You cannot 100% control what a child does. The reason why this is a issue instead of other Google searches is because she is a celebrity and children admire celebrities. When you're a young kid, instead of being morally and personally developed as you are now, you will look up to a lot of people, so it's important. A sixteen-year-old dancing on a pole is not what I would want my kids to be watching.
If you want to be a good parent you shouldn't want to control 100% of a child's activity, but you should instead understand what motivates those parts that aren't under your every whim and sway to contort to your purposes.
And my point is that it's well within your rights to say I don't want my child to see a 16yr old dancing on a pole. It's not within your rights to say that nobody else should, as bizarre as we might find that action. You have the ability to control actual pornography (including nudity) produced using people who are under legal age of consent because those events represent actual harms inflicted on children involved, but not mere sexually charged events that are, in your mind, a bad influence upon others.
I don't believe this garbage, there should be no reason for her to be off the Disney Channel.
Are you her agent or something?
That picture up there would be the first instance I've seen her (I'm assuming that's her). So no. I'm just annoyed at people trying to have their morals imposed culturally via a police state mentality. If you don't like her, change the channel or ignore her. Talk to your kids about her and get them to do the same as best you can (or at worst explain what in particular is so wrong about her to them). Simple as that.
As it stands, suppose Disney were to get rid of her, you still wouldn't be in a position that she would become irrelevant and you'd be thus rid of her corruptive influences. Someone else would pay her because she has now become a marketable figure. I don't see any reason why Disney should be forced to lose out on that possibility of profit just because you personally disapprove of one of their products. If enough people didn't approve of their practice of employing her, she'd not be profitable.
I certainly understand that. Corporations are going to keep her, because she is profitable. That's the thing with corporations, they will keep going until someone blows the whistle. I was just wondering whether or not someone should.
They'll keep going until something costs them something, yes. If more people stopped watching her or attending her concerts then she would cost them something and they'd step in or get rid of her entirely.
I'd have no problem if people wanted to boycott her (or even Disney as a corporation). I'm not sure it would actually do anything in this case, but they're welcome to try to flex their consumer muscles. She seems to be popular icon enough to be roughly insulated from such things and to have counter-boycotts, in fact her very popularity is probably one major reason people are annoyed. But to suppose that Disney has to fire her to satisfy a vocal minority of their consumers who are dissatisfied with one particular product, in effect to censor free and artistic creations as defined by consumers (such as it is…), is pushing into the ridiculous.
We can't leave it up to the corporations or to the parents, because that's just pushing the problem off to someone else. She is a bad influence to children all over the world, and I shouldn't have to monitor my children 24/7 in order to prevent them from being influenced by an immoral individual.
The problem is that you are attempting to police something for everyone else, something which isn't illegal, probably is only questionably immoral, and really it isn't any of your concern what other parents and children do, who they choose to follow and attend to.
So actually you do have to monitor your children 24-7 if your intention is to prevent undue influences from coming over them. Or you could just raise them to have appropriate influences instead, let them make their own choices, and perhaps explain when you disagree with the ones they or their friends make.
Yea, you can't think like that otherwise nothing will get done. You can always come up with a reason to not do something.
Immoral is acting like a tramp in front of little children. That's the immoral part here.
I don't see how that's immoral. Warped or unusual perhaps.
No. I can't. If she did something we can find is a harmful act that's a reason to do something. I haven't seen evidence that this is actually harmful and/or that she is the cause of that harm. It looks mostly to me like the parent police want to think it is harmful because they disagree with her behavior.
Whatever, she needs to be booted, whether or not it's immoral.
What then is the justification for doing so if it isn't causing a harm to morals?
There isn't a profit signal that says she costs Disney more than she makes them (or costs more than some other replacement would). I would say that indicates there are plenty of people who like her for some reason or other. For all the complaining about the Paris Hilton-ites, they seem to keep getting TV shows and media coverage. This would not happen if these were not generating some sort of profit and attention. Just ignore them. You can't control what other people are going to find appealing (or revolting).
No, she should be kicked off. I don't care. A lot of people are practically babies, including adults. Boycotting will not be done. Sometimes, you have to do things yourself.
Kick her off.
Give her the boot!
"and I shouldn't have to monitor my children 24/7 in order to prevent them from being influenced by an immoral individual. " …..wait your a parent right?….oh yeah that's you JOB!
definently i agree she is horrible xD not joking >,,,.,,>
never! miley is a great role model and she is a brilliant singer! disney channel should keep her and the show!!!
As of immediately, I have already read enough mixed reviews. Some say she should stay, others dispute she should be terminated. Ladies and gentlemen of “the United Nations,” it is with foremost matter of opinion she should stay. However, should there be any disagreement, I will respect it. If she should be terminated, so be it. Otherwise, the parents, after all, know whatever is best for their offspring and thus their job as parental defenders pertaining to their utmost resposibility. In conclusion and with all due respect, never could I care less. Hence my opinion. Thank You.