How can you side with either when you haven't even seen the movie?? Sounds like a hypocrite statement to me.? (No I didn't call you a hypocrite, I called your statement one)
Like Trent said, I'm suggesting 'don't judge the book by it's cover', but in a more convoluted way. I'm merely pointing out that the original argument, whose primary tenets are, a) that it is offensive to physically/mentally handicapped people, and b) it is based on a thirty-second television spot while looking as if it can go no where positive, is a weak argument.
In my quest to point out irrationality, I'm noting that one must witness the entire movie to be able to form such a strong opinion*. Moreover, I'm also suggesting -- given that the people who are supposedly offended had a hand in editing/writing the script and promoting the movie -- that the other pillar of your (not 'your' being you, 'Szuper') argument is without basis.
*? When you're arguing against the movie, it is best to have seen it -- my side of the argument can be supported by the varying groups who have had a hand in the production and the fact that I'm not saying that the movie is good/bad, but that the direction/logic behind the other side's argument is fragile