Pregnant nun ice cream advert banned for 'mockery'

[six45ive]

It's plain bad manners isn't it?

 

How is it bad manners to express what you are or what you deeply feel or believe about something?

 

The thread isn't necessarily about stopping people holding those views or banning people from creating adverts depicting pregnant nuns.

 

Sorry for misreading the title of the thread. Please enlighten me as to what this thread is about.

 

That's pretty much what I said isn't it?

 

Pretty much, but I'd still like to see more of a rhetorical stance from yourself of defending freedom of speech as opposed to defending some wierd notion of defending a person's 'right' not to be 'offended' as you seem to have done throughout this thread.

This part of your OP is a clear example.

It appears being gratuitously offensive to religious groups is the sport for Autumn.

 

The image of the 'nun' is pretty sacred to Catholics, and obviously is a representation of that woman's dedication to chastity. So to depict a nun in the latter stages of pregnancy in order to sell ice cream is taking satire a little too far in my opinion.

[boyfriday]

How is it bad manners to express what you are or what you deeply feel or believe about something?

I didn't say it was, the thread is about offence being caused for gratuitous reasons ie where the 'offender' has no investment in the subject matter and is deliberately trying to create a negative reaction.

 

Sorry for misreading the title of the thread. Please enlighten me as to what this thread is about.

The thread title is simply a talking point, the intention is to stimulate a debate about the reasons people use to justify causing offence and the rights of others to challenge them.

 

Pretty much, but I'd still like to see more of a rhetorical stance from yourself of defending freedom of speech as opposed to defending some wierd notion of defending a person's 'right' not to be 'offended' as you seem to have done throughout this thread.

 

You've gone down channel 1 and addressing the issue on a superficial level, I'm not defending the right of anyone to be offended or not be offended, I'm offering a contrary view to provoke a discussion, what I believe isn't really important.

 

I've defended the rights to freedom of speech many many times here, even when the subject matter is something I personally don't support (eg religion, BNP).

[six45ive]

I didn't say it was, the thread is about offence being caused for gratuitous reasons ie where the 'offender' has no investment in the subject matter and is deliberately trying to create a negative reaction.

 

So? What's the problem with that? It might be inate in a person's character to try and cause a negative reaction on a large scale. Politicians do it all the time whilst trying to impose their ideology over an alternate ideology. It's perfectly acceptable and totally natural part of human behaviour.

 

The thread title is simply a talking point, the intention is to stimulate a debate about the reasons people use to justify causing offence and the rights of others to challenge them.

 

What have you in mind regarding my highlighted part?

 

You've gone down channel 1 and addressing the issue on a superficial level, I'm not defending the right of anyone to be offended or not be offended, I'm offering a contrary view to provoke a discussion, what I believe isn't really important.

 

So.....if what you believe isn't important then why do you spend so much time giving your opinion? Unless, of course, you're trolling?

 

I've defended the rights to freedom of speech many many times here, even when the subject matter is something I personally don't support (eg religion, BNP).

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lip+service

'Nuff said.

[boyfriday]

So? What's the problem with that? It might be inate in a person's character to try and cause a negative reaction on a large scale. Politicians do it all the time whilst trying to impose their ideology over an alternate ideology. It's perfectly acceptable and totally natural part of human behaviour.

You're missing my point-I said previously that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for saying something that might cause offence, a political argument would be one of them.

 

Our behaviour is (usually) moderated depending on the situations we find ourselves in, in real life I often use lary language to embellish what I say, but I wouldn't do so in front of people I don't know or elderly relatives. Extending certain logic that would be entirely appropriate, in fact it should be championed because it's exercising a right to be offensive.

 

What have you in mind regarding my highlighted part?

Well this thread is a good case in point, it seems impossible to stimulate a debate on this issue without the mantra of 'freedom of speech' being trotted out.

 

Yes, I know all that, I'm trying to establish at what point the responsibilities that go with those rights self limits them.

 

It would appear there is no limitation where the person creating the offence has no interest in the subject matter and is seeking to offend without consideration for the people they might be offending.

 

So.....if what you believe isn't important then why do you spend so much time giving your opinion? Unless, of course, you're trolling?

..alas, and is there a problem with trolling, isn't that a freedom that is legitimate to express? It's no more or less credible than gratuitously offending people for the sake of it!

[Grahame]

You're missing my point-I said previously that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for saying something that might cause offence, a political argument would be one of them.

 

Our behaviour is (usually) moderated depending on the situations we find ourselves in, in real life I often use lary language to embellish what I say, but I wouldn't do so in front of people I don't know or elderly relatives. Extending certain logic that would be entirely appropriate, in fact it should be championed because it's exercising a right to be offensive.

 

Well this thread is a good case in point, it seems impossible to stimulate a debate on this issue without the mantra of 'freedom of speech' being trotted out.

 

Yes, I know all that, I'm trying to establish at what point the responsibilities that go with those rights self limits them.

 

It would appear there is no limitation where the person creating the offence has no interest in the subject matter and is seeking to offend without consideration for the people they might be offending.

 

..alas, and is there a problem with trolling, isn't that a freedom that is legitimate to express? It's no more or less credible than gratuitously offending people for the sake of it!

 

Yes there is a problem with trolling. Trolls have nothing to offer by way of information neither do they have anything worthwhile to contribute. They derail informed debates and their interruptions show them up for the uninformed people they really are.

 

Don't take it personally, only it was you who asked the question.

 

 

[six45ive]

You're missing my point-I said previously that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for saying something that might cause offence, a political argument would be one of them.

 

I'm not missing the point at all. I understand perfectly that a political argument is a legitimate reason for causing offence, but who dictates what's legitimate and what isn't? Somebody may think humour is a legitimate reason, others not. Some may think advertising an ice cream to sell more of it (with the side effect of raising more taxes/employing more people) is a legitimate reason to offend, others not. Some people may just go out to offend because that's their nature and they have no interest in following 'social norms. That's OK too.

At the end of the day it's down to the individual doing the offending to decide and nobody else.........period.

 

Our behaviour is (usually) moderated depending on the situations we find ourselves in, in real life I often use lary language to embellish what I say, but I wouldn't do so in front of people I don't know or elderly relatives.

 

And that's entirely up to you but other people may not wish to follow your mantra.

 

Well this thread is a good case in point, it seems impossible to stimulate a debate on this issue without the mantra of 'freedom of speech' being trotted out.

 

Which simply reinforces my earlier link on your real attitude to free speech;http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lip+service

Freedom of speech is the bottom line. Your conscience is yours and yours alone and you can't dictate that somebody else follows it.

 

Yes, I know all that, I'm trying to establish at what point the responsibilities that go with those rights self limits them.

 

What responsibilities? What you on about? The only thing that matters is that an individual can be themselves and express themselves how they feel. If other people don't like that then tough......deal with it.

 

It would appear there is no limitation where the person creating the offence has no interest in the subject matter and is seeking to offend without consideration for the people they might be offending.

 

Yyeeepp......that just about sums it up.

 

..alas, and is there a problem with trolling, isn't that a freedom that is legitimate to express? It's no more or less credible than gratuitously offending people for the sake of it!

 

Absolutely.......thanks for just proving my point.

I'm offended by your 15000+ posts of mainly sanctimonious trolling but you're totally entitled to do it. It seems to be an inate part of your character and, even if it isn't, you're still entitled to post that way if you so wish even if I, or anybody on this forum, claims to have been damaged in some way by it.

[boyfriday]

What responsibilities? What you on about?

 

The responsibilities that apply to the right to freedom of expression under the Convention on Human Rights.

 

ARTICLE 10

 

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

 

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

 

http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

[boyfriday]

Yes there is a problem with trolling. Trolls have nothing to offer by way of information neither do they have anything worthwhile to contribute. They derail informed debates and their interruptions show them up for the uninformed people they really are.

 

Don't take it personally, only it was you who asked the question.

 

It was a rhetorical question Grahame

 

But the point is addressed at those who believe that the rights to express oneself supercede the social boundaries that we place on our behaviour-in other words 'trolling' should be tolerated.

[Grahame]

It was a rhetorical question Grahame

 

But the point is addressed at those who believe that the rights to express oneself supercede the social boundaries that we place on our behaviour-in other words 'trolling' should be tolerated.

 

That puts trolls on a level with litter louts, people who play loud music in public places, put their feet on bus seats, urinate in the street and generally have no consideration for others because they are ignorant, abusive, self centred, attention seeking brats looking for a fight.

 

They get tolerated for the same reason we tolerate a headache and the sooner its gone the better.

 

[boyfriday]

That puts trolls on a level with litter louts, people who play loud music in public places, put their feet on bus seats, urinate in the street and generally have no consideration for others because they are ignorant, abusive, self centred, attention seeking brats looking for a fight.

 

They get tolerated for the same reason we tolerate a headache and the sooner its gone the better.

 

Thank you Grahame, at last someone who doesn't sit on the fence with their opinions!

 

Ps: would you mind if I pee'd on your shoes?