Facebook   Twitter    YouTube    RSS Feed    Android App    iPhone and iPad App     BlackBerry App    
Subscribe to Newsletter



Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011
Results 151 to 157 of 157

Thread: Why do Christians take offence to the latest Red Bull ad?

  1. #151
    Super Grandmaster porchrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    I don't know but it smells like lasagna
    Posts
    25,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ... View Post
    I have no issue with them both voicing their concerns, however the moment you accept one objection on this basis, you must accept all other equal objections. In other words it becomes a farcical affair. We're back to my post that was directed at Arthur earlier in the thread...
    Surely if you are a business like Red Bull then what ultimately matters is moving product. It isn't about considering every party's side equally, it is just about moving product. If Christians represent a large enough portion of your consumer base that you need to listen or risk suffering tremendous losses then frankly fsck the other opposing objections.

    That doesn't make it farcicial to me at all.
    Delta Motor Corporation of South Africa Opel Monza 160i GSi Car of the Year 1991
    Historical Significance

  2. #152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abandonallhope View Post
    The problem is that it's totally and utterly impossible for life to spontaneously pop into existence for no reason.




    That's it case closed guys, we have undeniable proof of gods existence.
    Last edited by Unhappy438; 16-03-2012 at 04:49 PM.

  3. #153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by porchrat View Post
    Surely if you are a business like Red Bull then what ultimately matters is moving product. It isn't about considering every party's side equally, it is just about moving product. If Christians represent a large enough portion of your consumer base that you need to listen or risk suffering tremendous losses then frankly fsck the other opposing objections.

    That doesn't make it farcicial to me at all.
    Ok, let's just get the thing about asking for something to be censored not making you responsible for it being censored. You mentioned earlier that you think some censorship is necessary including speech the intention of which is insight violence. Right? Ok so, now you don't get to argue that the instigator is not responsible for the outcome.

    I'm not saying that pressuring a company to do something can't be a great thing. I am saying that a line has to be drawn somewhere and that in my opinion being offended by a company joking about your beliefs is a dumb reason to try and pressure a company. They're not actually harming anyone in anyway. Their actual product has presumably not lacking in quality as a result.

    The only way you can justify the Church as an entity pressuring a company to not offend it is if you believe they have a right not to be offended. That's all it comes down to. Every time anyone or any group asserts it's right not to be offended it sets a precedent for everyone to assert their right not to be offended.

    So yes it's good that consumers can bring pressure to bear on companies but it's not good for society in general when consumers use that power in ways that aren't good for society in general.

    It's compounded by the fact that this was instigated by the Catholic hierarchy, which sorry to break it to you doesn't represent the opinion of Catholics. Catholics haven't sign over their right to form an opinion on everything to the RCC. This can be seen by the fact that 95% of American women use or have used contraceptives at one point or another. If you consider that Catholicism is the single largest Christian denomination in the US you've got figure that the vast majority of Catholics couldn't give a fcck what the Church has to say on at least some issues. The clergy is not elected by its membership and it can't claim to be representative.

    So this isn't even a case of consumer pressure. This is a case of a the hierarchy claiming to speak for their membership, who they may or not be in agreement with on this issue, asserting the right of people who may or may not be offended to be offended.

    As for Red Bull, do you think they honestly give a fcck? They more than likely aired the ad knowing full well it would cause offence with every intention of pulling it as soon as someone complained.

    Net result: the Catholic Church has succeeded in entrenching the right of religion to be offended by criticism in our societies zeitgeist.
    Quote Originally Posted by icyrus View Post
    Good to see that you are still a bigoted ignorant arsehole. Some things never change.

  4. #154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unhappy438 View Post
    That's it case closed guys, we have undeniable proof of gods existence.
    You miss the point entirely. The existence or otherwise of God is not at issue here. What is at issue is human liberty and the way we manage that in a society of different views about fundamental things.

    When atheists object about Nativity Sets and Christmas Trees in public places (or even in private gardens) they are not necessarily trying to censor believers or force their beliefs (or unbeliefs) on others. They are entitled to voice their opinion and objections, and to get others to join them in protesting or even boycotting products peddled by religious people. I have no problem with their right to do so, though of course I think they're benightedly wrong to do so.

    It is an entirely different ballgame when they try to elicit the State's support in their battle, ie when they invoke police power to compel compliance.

    In similar fashion, no religious group and certainly not the Catholic Church is asking the State to ban Red Bull or the advert or in any way to censure or censor them.

    Those who think ordinary consumer action objecting to ads or calling for boycotts are somehow over-reacting, are themselves over-reacting to the Church's objections ... they're displaying exactly the kind of thin-skinned oversensitivity they accuse the Bishops of displaying.
    Last edited by Arthur; 16-03-2012 at 05:15 PM.

  5. #155
    Grandmaster SoulTax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Less sun, more peace
    Posts
    3,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abandonallhope View Post
    The problem is that it's totally and utterly impossible for me to understand how life could spontaneously pop into existence for no reason. Therefore, Goddidit.
    Fixed it for you
    As for the rest of the obligatory mandatory reply that gets posted to correct this type of closed-mindedness. I seriously cannot be arsed to do it anymore. There are just certain types of people that don't get it and never will. I can only hope that in future generations, those people are naturally deselected from our collective gene pool.

  6. #156
    Super Grandmaster ponder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    KZN Dolphin Coast
    Posts
    44,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SoulTax View Post
    I can only hope that in future generations, those people are naturally deselected from our collective gene pool.
    Or thrown to the lions
    entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

  7. #157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur View Post
    You miss the point entirely. etc

    I haven't missed any point and im fully aware of the topic on hand. If you notice it was abandonallhope that veered from the topic and i was merely responding to his outrageous claims.

    As for the rest of it i do see where you are coming from, however i think that Christians need to develop a sense of humour with comedy like this. Heaven is sounding like a very dull place.
    Last edited by Unhappy438; 17-03-2012 at 02:39 PM.

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •