retep Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 That is what I wanted to see, a logical acceptance that anybody upset at what they perceive an insult have a right to complain and the perpetrator to then respond by considering the feelings of the complainant. I used the foaming at the mouth term not for the ad makers but for the wagon jumpers who make it their own little war to defend the freedom to insult because it fits in with their respective prejudices. This understandibly of course, was a commercial decisson as should have been a commercial decissions of the Danish Government to make the right noises regarding other issues to safeguard their Mid East export market. They instead screamed about freedom of expression whilst claiming that the insulted should not have the freedom to complain of being insulted, and the rest is history.... Wonder if it damaged their bacon sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Catholics have kicked up a fuss about an advert so it has been pulled. "The ad begins with Latin singing in an Argentine "church" complete with a stained-glass window of a soccer ball. "Worshippers" (mocking the religious devotion some in Argentina have for the game) are taking Eucharist on their knees receiving slices of pizza rather that communion. The commercial also shows a soccer ball covered with a crown of thorns, part of Jesus Christ's passion" Wayne Rooney was also stopped from talking about his faith and why he wears a cross. Does that make it a draw? I think both stories are a load of horse ****. The ad shouldn't have been taken off air, Rooney should tell the FA get stuffed he is as free as anybody to talk about his own faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 That is what I wanted to see, a logical acceptance that anybody upset at what they perceive an insult have a right to complain Well yes, no sensible person has ever said otherwise. and the perpetrator to then respond by considering the feelings of the complainant. Why does the perpetrator have to respond? I used the foaming at the mouth term not for the ad makers but for the wagon jumpers who make it their own little war to defend the freedom to insult because it fits in with their respective prejudices. This understandibly of course, was a commercial decisson as should have been a commercial decissions of the Danish Government to make the right noises regarding other issues to safeguard their Mid East export market. They instead screamed about freedom of expression whilst claiming that the insulted should not have the freedom to complain of being insulted, and the rest is history.... Oh dear. It's so wrong an argument it's just ... wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Yet another thread that is steered towards bashing non-moderate muslims. Lets keep it on the subject please. Islamophobia is taking over the West. Just look here. Before you know it, MI5 will be putting cameras up all over the place just to keep an eye on them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/birmingham/10337961.stm Actually they are putting bags over them becasue they're offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Yet another thread that is steered towards bashing non-moderate muslims. Lets keep it on the subject please. Islamophobia is taking over the West. Just look here. Before you know it, MI5 will be putting cameras up all over the place just to keep an eye on them. It seems perfectly ok to start threads squarely aimed at non-moderate Christians though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 I strongly suspect you don't know the difference between humour and being offensive. You're spelling isn't too great either! It's 'grammar' btw. The thread title is misleading. The ad wasn't banned, it was withdrawn. you really cant answer me can you do you know, I could have sworn that that was precisely what Redrobbo did in that post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 The Pope threatened to give up sex until the advert was banned. welcome to the forum, your holiness..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 any death threats? riots? IEDs? or was it a civalized objection? What you mean the Argentinian Embassies haven't been firebombed? Or the marketing company or tv stations? Nobody has tried to kill the person that thought up this ad? It's all a bit civilised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted June 18, 2010 Author Share Posted June 18, 2010 It seems perfectly ok to start threads squarely aimed at non-moderate Christians though? I used to be one through no fault of my own so I feel better qualified to comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 That is what I wanted to see, a logical acceptance that anybody upset at what they perceive an insult have a right to complainYes of course they do, who has said otherwise? and the perpetrator to then respond by considering the feelings of the complainant.Only because they wanted to sell things to them. I used the foaming at the mouth term not for the ad makers but for the wagon jumpers who make it their own little war to defend the freedom to insult because it fits in with their respective prejudices. This understandibly of course, was a commercial decisson as should have been a commercial decissions of the Danish Government to make the right noises regarding other issues to safeguard their Mid East export market. You're joking right? Can you really not see the difference between an advertiser choosing to pull an advert in order to maximise profits and the state censoring one of its citizens because of a perceived offence? Because I can, the Danish Government has no right to remove the advert. If the paper which published the cartoons was particularly interested in selling papers to Muslims then perhaps they will choose to remove it, but no-one has the right to censor them. It sounds a lot like you're arguing that the Danish government should have banned the cartoons, I hope that's not what you're arguing, is it? They instead screamed about freedom of expression whilst claiming that the insulted should not have the freedom to complain of being insulted, and the rest is history.... NO they didn't, no-one claimed that people don't have the right to complain, what we did claim (and is still true) is that the cartoonist do not have to do anything about the complaints. You are perfectly entitled to complain and they are perfectly entitled to do absolutely nothing about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.