Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on April 13, 2017, 08:47:06 PM
-
Tesco give hope of employment to utter numpties.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39587226
-
Which numpties are you referring to?
Can't see the problem here: it is a holiday weekend after all.
-
Vlad,
Tesco give hope of employment to utter numpties.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39587226
I'm not aware that they're forcing Christians to buy their products, so what's wrong with it?
-
I tried to start a thread about this earlier and got the 'Forbidden' error. I don't think it was the term 'cobblers' that did it so it must have been something else...
-
Gordon,
Which numpties are you referring to?
I think I've worked out what Vlad's getting at. The article says:
"Vicar and broadcaster, the Reverend Richard Coles, said the advert was "extraordinarily and unnecessarily ignorant".
Vlad's saying that Tesco are giving hope of employment as a BBC rentaquote type to numpties like Coles. I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but I actually agree with him here.
-
It seems unlikely to me that most Christians would expect 'Good Friday' to be any more than the start of a holiday weekend for those of us who aren't Christian, and possibly some Christians will enjoy the spring holiday weekend much on the same basis as non-Christians.
The outrage expressed in the link seems to be that Tesco (and the likes of me, among others) aren't treating tomorrow with the same reverence that these Christians clearly do: can't see why we should though, and can't see how whatever the Tesco promotion is prevents these same Christians from spending tomorrow as they think fit.
Times have changed: it used to be the case that horse-racing was illegal on 'Good Friday' but no longer; there are three meetings tomorrow.
-
Gordon,
I think I've worked out what Vlad's getting at. The article says:
"Vicar and broadcaster, the Reverend Richard Coles, said the advert was "extraordinarily and unnecessarily ignorant".
Vlad's saying that Tesco are giving hope of employment as a BBC rentaquote type to numpties like Coles. I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but I actually agree with him here.
Me too: so we both agree with Vlad: wow!
-
Gordon,
Me too: so we both agree with Vlad: wow!
What are the flippin' chances eh? Maybe we should declare tomorrow a national holiday to celebrate the occasion.
Oh, hang on a mo...
-
You both have a great future in retail Ho Ho Ho.
-
Gordon,
You both have a great future in retail Ho Ho Ho.
Blimey, willya look at that. After all these years old Vlad finally posts something a rational person can agree with, and this is the thanks we get for doing so!
Oh well. Charm never was his long suit I guess...
PS Re the "Ho Ho Ho" - I'm pretty sure he's got the wrong holiday there though :(
-
"Vicar and broadcaster, the Reverend Richard Coles, said the advert was "extraordinarily and unnecessarily ignorant".
I agree - but it isn't just Tesco's who seem unaware of the origins of the term 'Good Friday'. Many Christians, including major denominations are also extraordinarily and unnecessarily ignorant when failing to recognise the origins of the term 'Easter', for example talking about the 'true meaning of Easter' which would of course be a celebration of the spring, not a commemoration of the death and purported resurrection of Jesus.
So people in glass houses, and all that.
-
The outrage expressed in the link seems to be that Tesco (and the likes of me, among others) aren't treating tomorrow with the same reverence that these Christians clearly do: can't see why we should though, and can't see how whatever the Tesco promotion is prevents these same Christians from spending tomorrow as they think fit.
I'm not sure I read it like that.
To me the issue seems to be that Tesco didn't recognise that their advert might be considered offensive to those who see Easter as a important religious festival.
I don't think that means that those who aren't religious shouldn't mark Easter and the bank holiday weekend as they wish. But I don't think that want to celebrate Easter in a non religious manner wish to cause offence to those that do, and that's the problem with the advert.
But, of course, those who are marking the 'real' meaning of Easter are those that are celebrating the spring and marvelling at the new life bursting into flower, wing and song all around us. And I suspect that include the vast majority of those who see Easter as a secular holiday, whether or not they overtly note it. Frankly it is pretty well impossible to fail to note the significance of the season, with longer evenings and new leaves and blossom all around.
And hence the challenge to the Christians - the older pagan meaning of Easter is obvious, needs no study or convoluted thinking. It simply 'is' and is obvious to all regardless of upbringing etc. How hard must that be for those that believe in the Christian version of Easter, which is (let's face it) completely unbelievable to pretty well everyone unless you are brought up to believe. If a message is only believable if you are brought up to believe, then it is a weak message indeed. Strong messages are as readily accessible and believable by all regardless of upbringing.
-
To me the issue seems to be that Tesco didn't recognise that their advert might be considered offensive to those who see Easter as a important religious festival.
I just want to clear up something which might get you into a little hot water with Christians, Prof.
Good Friday is not part of Easter. Easter begins on Sunday.
-
I'm not sure I read it like that.
To me the issue seems to be that Tesco didn't recognise that their advert might be considered offensive to those who see Easter as a important religious festival.
Why though should Tesco concern themselves unduly with religious sensitivities by using the term 'Good Friday' in a colloquial sense Those offended need not avail themselves of the Tesco promotion.
This, from the article, suggests that some religious types think that what they treat with reverence should be treated equally reverentially by the rest of us too.
Tesco "got it badly wrong" with the "crass" advert, Michael Wakelin, from the faculty of divinity at Cambridge University, told BBC 5 live.
It was also a "decidedly poor way of treating such a holy day", said Mr Wakelin, a former head of BBC religious programmes.
"I'm sure there was no attempt to offend, I'm sure that wasn't in their mind.
"It is just religious illiteracy; ignorance if you like, around what religious people hold dear, and that is my main concern," he added.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39587226
I 'hold dear' that I should be able to behave reasonably and legally whenever I want to!
-
Why though should Tesco concern themselves unduly with religious sensitivities by using the term 'Good Friday' in a colloquial sense Those offended need not avail themselves of the Tesco promotion.
Well I'm sure that crassness and ignorance is why many do not avail themselves of the New Atheist promotion. Which is like Tescos.....a great retail operation.........how many ''units'' have been shifted to date?
-
Why though should Tesco concern themselves unduly with religious sensitivities by using the term 'Good Friday' in a colloquial sense Those offended need not avail themselves of the Tesco promotion.
Because they are not axe grinding swivel eyed antitheists?
-
As a pagan who used to be a Christian, I think that it does show stunning ignorance on the part of Tesco for them not to realise that Good Friday is a day when suffering and sacrifice are the themes of the day. I think the offence is due to the play on words.
HH is correct; this is Passion Week. Easter begins on Sunday followed by Easter week. And just to be clear, the pagan festival Ostara has been and gone with the Equinox. Easter is dated by Passover.
-
It seems both crass and unimportant to me. There are people being killed for their religious beliefs , or lack of them! This and the pish filled cant about the egg hunt are a nonsense.
-
It seems both crass and unimportant to me. There are people being killed for their religious beliefs , or lack of them! This and the pish filled cant about the egg hunt are a nonsense.
Yes. I understand the reason for the offence and it does show incredible ignorance, but there are bigger things for Christians to get fussed about.
Actually I think there is an unspoken fear here - once upon a time many people knew what Good Friday symbolised. I can remember not getting newspapers, shops shutting, no sporting fixtures. Therein lies the fear for Christians - people don't know what the day means, and don't care, and they are highly unlikely ever to get that influence back. It's more proof we are culturally Christian rather than religiously so.
-
It seems both crass and unimportant to me. There are people being killed for their religious beliefs , or lack of them! This and the pish filled cant about the egg hunt are a nonsense.
I disagree. The idea put on here that it is ok to upset minority or indeed any people as long as sales aren't affected or indeed to increase sales is appalling.
-
Yes. I understand the reason for the offence and it does show incredible ignorance, but there are bigger things for Christians to get fussed about.
Actually I think there is an unspoken fear here - once upon a time many people knew what Good Friday symbolised. I can remember not getting newspapers, shops shutting, no sporting fixtures. Therein lies the fear for Christians - people don't know what the day means, and don't care, and they are highly unlikely ever to get that influence back. It's more proof we are culturally Christian rather than religiously so.
There are bigger things for anyone to worry about. Last night I was at a protest against the rapeclause. This on the other hand is a sad joke. Theresa May got upset about an incorrect idea of not using the word Easter for some chocolate eggs in a while trying to sell arms in a country that will behead people for apostasy. That was offensive. This is people taking offence for the sake of it.
-
I disagree. The idea put on here that it is ok to upset minority or indeed any people as long as sales aren't affected or indeed to increase sales is appalling.
No, it really isn't. The idea is that no one really thought about it. And while it is indeed crass, no one has been killed, no one has been harmed. Getting upset about nonsense means you allow real offence and harm to take place.
-
I disagree. The idea put on here that it is ok to upset minority or indeed any people as long as sales aren't affected or indeed to increase sales is appalling.
I think it is more the case of some people feeling offended by relative trivia (be it Tesco adverts or the sale of chocolate eggs) - when there are better reasons to feel offended than these.
-
Therein lies the fear for Christians - people don't know what the day means, and don't care, and they are highly unlikely ever to get that influence back. It's more proof we are culturally Christian rather than religiously so.
The only thing to fear here is the tyranny of a secular humanist majority given to casual bullying because you can bet your bottom dollar not every minority can expect this sort of thing.
Also this post denies the view that we still live in a religious society or that Christianity has power. The prime culture is secular and humanist and memories of our religious heritage have been accurately discouraged by Humanist.
That gives lie to the claim that people convert to Christianity because of their culture.
In any case that would mean that people are culturally and perhaps nominally atheist i.e not as fanatical as people who post on here.
-
Well the good thing is that this has directed me to Richard Coles' Twitter feed, which is actually quite entertaining.
Just to say, it is possible to get offended by this and the rape clause, and the massacre of the Copts, and the fact that Trump exists. Christians don't have a finite store of it that runs out once they've finished reading the Daily Telegraph.
-
I think it is more the case of some people feeling offended by relative trivia (be it Tesco adverts or the sale of chocolate eggs) - when there are better reasons to feel offended than these.
Gordon
For me this is a complaint about crassness and ignorance in society.
Why should it just be you who is free to promote it?
-
Christians don't have a finite store of it that runs out once they've finished reading the Daily Telegraph.
Caricaturing Christians?
-
The only thing to fear here is the tyranny of a secular humanist majority given to casual bullying because you can bet your bottom dollar not every minority can expect this sort of thing.
Also this post denies the view that we still live in a religious society or that Christianity has power. The prime culture is secular and humanist and memories of our religious heritage have been accurately discouraged by Humanist.
That gives lie to the claim that people convert to Christianity because of their culture.
In any case that would mean that people are culturally and perhaps nominally atheist i.e not as fanatical as people who post on here.
Of course we are culturally Christian. Why do you think most people have a day off today? It is a part of our Christian heritage, our culture. Aside from the utter shit talked about paganism in popular culture, other minority faiths don't come in for 'this sort of thing' because all that is happening is the treatment of Christianity as a part of the cultural fabric of our lives rather than something to be revered.
-
Caricaturing Christians?
Not by me. Ask NS why he thinks your outrage runs out at Tesco ads.
-
Not by me. Ask NS why he thinks your outrage runs out at Tesco ads.
You said Christians were Daily Telegraph readers did you not.
-
Well the good thing is that this has directed me to Richard Coles' Twitter feed, which is actually quite entertaining.
Just to say, it is possible to get offended by this and the rape clause, and the massacre of the Copts, and the fact that Trump exists. Christians don't have a finite store of it that runs out once they've finished reading the Daily Telegraph.
No, creating equivalence on this exactly reduces the outrage. That's why having the PM mouth off about the non missing Easter as regards chocolate eggs that so are symbolic of the meaning of Easter while selling arms to kill people in a country where you can be killed for expressing your views is so offensive. Treat everything the same, and nothing is then important.
-
Not by me. Ask NS why he thinks your outrage runs out at Tesco ads.
No, he doesn't. He just thinks that are better things to be outraged by.
-
You said Christians were Daily Telegraph readers did you not.
Because I am picking up on the caricature of the outraged middle classes who miss the real and dirty side of suffering.
-
No, he doesn't. He just thinks that are better things to be outraged by.
And I agree. But being pissed off by a Tesco ad doesn't mean that someone approves of arm sales to Saudi or isn't outraged by the rape clause.
-
Because I am picking up on the caricature of the outraged middle classes who miss the real and dirty side of suffering.
This isn't suffering. Tesco's being crass , it isn't suffering. Don't belittle suffering by this pish
-
Because I am picking up on the caricature of the outraged middle classes who miss the real and dirty side of suffering.
But given what you said before about the decline in society, that middle class who miss etc, are likely to be secularist, humanist, atheist, materialist etc.
-
This isn't suffering. Tesco's being crass , it isn't suffering. Don't belittle suffering by this pish
Of course it isn't suffering. It's true I haven't been awake long but is what I'm saying really that unclear? FFS.
-
Gordon
For me this is a complaint about crassness and ignorance in society.
Why should it just be you who is free to promote it?
I'm not promoting it. If anything I'm indifferent to the Tesco/chocolate eggs stuff but perplexed that some take offence so easily rather than just ignoring it.
-
And I agree. But being pissed off by a Tesco ad doesn't mean that someone approves of arm sales to Saudi or isn't outraged by the rape clause.
have we downgraded 'outraged' to being 'pissed off'? Again the while 'oh dear, let's be pissed off about chocolate eggs' pish exactly let the vicar's daughter avoid any questions about selling arms to the Saudis.
-
But given what you said before about the decline in society, that middle class who miss etc, are likely to be secularist, humanist, atheist, materialist etc.
Oooh look, a caricature.
-
And I agree. But being pissed off by a Tesco ad doesn't mean that someone approves of arm sales to Saudi or isn't outraged by the rape clause.
Agreed.
-
have we downgraded 'outraged' to being 'pissed off'? Again the while 'oh dear, let's be pissed off about chocolate eggs' pish exactly let the vicar's daughter avoid any questions about selling arms to the Saudis.
Have you asked Vlad what his view on selling arms is? Im not sure all Christians are such disgusting hypocrites as our Prime Minister.
-
I'm not promoting it. If anything I'm indifferent to the Tesco/chocolate eggs stuff but perplexed that some take offence so easily rather than just ignoring it.
But would you feel so indifferent if they had had a promotion. ''This Hogmanay live like a Scotsman with a special on Irn Bru and DFM....Hoots mon''?
-
With a glass of Buckie on the side!
I get what Rhianna is saying and where she's coming from.
-
Have you asked Vlad what his view on selling arms is? Im not sure all Christians are such disgusting hypocrites as our Prime Minister.
And once more something i didn't say. But wgat did happen was May's vicar's daughter schtick distracted people. It made the equivalence between the non banning of Easter as regards chocolate eggs and suffering. Puffing up this story does the same.
-
TBH without it appearing on here, i'd have missed it totally.
Thing is, no one is stopping Christians from giving up food and alcohol and looking miserable, if that's what it means to them. No one forces them to drink beer or cider.
But they can't expect everyone else to be prepared to accept it with the same gravity.
Good Friday, the whole weekend, is now just a longer break from work for some people. For them Good Friday is Good because it's the first day of that break. So chances are those that feel TGIF ( thank God it's Friday) just go and buy some cans in to celebrate the free time.
Therefore Tesco's advert for those people is spot on.
It's them it's aimed at, not your miserable looking Christians who want to control others. No one is stopping them doing what they do to mark easter in their own way.
I'm afraid my view is that Christians need to stop expecting the rest of the world to conform to their religious beliefs.
Easter can also be a celebration of the return of light evenings, flowers, green returning to the trees and warmth. This can also involve drinking beer and cider if someone so wishes.
Perhaps some Christians need to respect what it means to others, with its eggs and bunnies and chicks and a time for a short holiday from work.
No one has to see public holidays in a religious setting, in some ways it might be better to have Easter 🐣 as a fixed public holiday separate from the Christian one which moves each year. Why not just have the public holiday in April every year while the Christian one can move as it usually does?
Then perhaps everyone will be happy.
But then some Christians will be offended because it won't involve us all learning about their religion.
I would like to see the public holiday fixed to a set time and separate from the religious one, you get a better chance of nice weather in April. :)
Eggs, bunnies, chicks don't have much to do with Christianity either.
We could just leave Christianity to do it's own thing.
Whatever that is.
-
TBH without it appearing on here, i'd have missed it totally.
Thing is, no one is stopping Christians from giving up food and alcohol and looking miserable, if that's what it means to them. No one forces them to drink beer or cider.
But they can't expect everyone else to be prepared to accept it with the same gravity.
Good Friday, the whole weekend, is now just a longer break from work for some people. For them Good Friday is Good because it's the first day of that break. So chances are those that feel TGIF ( thank God it's Friday) just go and buy some cans in to celebrate the free time.
Therefore Tesco's advert for those people is spot on.
It's them it's aimed at, not your miserable looking Christians who want to control others. No one is stopping them doing what they do to mark easter in their own way.
I'm afraid my view is that Christians need to stop expecting the rest of the world to conform to their religious beliefs.
Easter can also be a celebration of the return of light evenings, flowers, green returning to the trees and warmth. This can also involve drinking beer and cider if someone so wishes.
Perhaps some Christians need to respect what it means to others, with its eggs and bunnies and chicks and a time for a short holiday from work.
No one has to see public holidays in a religious setting, in some ways it might be better to have Easter 🐣 as a fixed public holiday separate from the Christian one which moves each year. Why not just have the public holiday in April every year while the Christian one can move as it usually does?
Then perhaps everyone will be happy.
But then some Christians will be offended because it won't involve us all learning about their religion.
I would like to see the public holiday fixed to a set time and separate from the religious one, you get a better chance of nice weather in April. :)
Eggs, bunnies, chicks don't have much to do with Christianity either.
We could just leave Christianity to do it's own thing.
Whatever that is.
But look at what were saying here.
Good Friday is now just a day which is a break from the grind....a day we can be thankful to our economic masters. Has life come to just being ''working and not working'' or ''working and drinking''.....
.......and how long will it be until it isn't a holiday, which must already be true for many. This is a strange and terrible world which is being promoted here. Of course the truth is that God is being replaced by mammon for which only some get to be in the priesthood.
You can just imagine having an April holiday then it being dropped because it was just ''originally a religious festival'' after all.
-
While I agree with NS that there are more urgent matters that should cause “outrage”, I’m not sure that they are necessarily more important than protecting the right to offend.
I don’t suppose the Tesco act was a deliberate act of offence-causing, but the apology was a deliberate act in the other direction and I don’t think Tesco should have done it – or indeed pulled the ad at all. And I don’t think certain Christians should have asked for or welcomed the apology either. Just the opposite I'd have thought.
Why? Because we pay special regard to not offending the religious – any religious – at our peril. If people want to be part of private members’ clubs with sets of beliefs and practices, that’s up to them and I’d defend roundly their rights to do so. I also though think that they overreach when they expect others to respect those beliefs and practices. If we do that, how should we decide which faiths deserve this privileged treatment and which do not? And even if we could decide that, how should we decide which parts of one exceptional faith are fine to ridicule or not? Most would I agree I think that prohibiting blood transfusions for dying children is loopy and wrong – would it be so bad then if the blood transfusion service ran an ad along the lines of, “Don’t let the Jehovah’s Witnesses kill children: donate blood”?
See, that’s the thing with protecting some religious beliefs from offence. Offence is taken, not given and once the principle is established that it’s the other way around then there’s no knowing where it will end. That’s why to many killing cartoonists for drawing Mohammed seemed just fine and dandy. Free speech – whether polemical argument or ads for booze – is far more important than protecting anyone’s right not to feel offended.
And why should Christians support the right to run the ad? Because it’s the exact same freedom of speech that protects their right to say and do as they please too. I happen to find a lot of things said by Christians to be offensive, and for that matter I find walking my children past buildings with models of a man nailed to a cross in the front garden pretty offensive too. Should I ask for these things to be prohibited or withdrawn, maybe with an apology to follow?
Never in a million years. If I’m offended, that’s my problem. As Stephen Fry memorably said in reply to the complaint, “You can’t say that because I’m offended by it”…
…”So fucking what?”
(See what I did there with an offensive word?)
-
While I agree with NS that there are more urgent matters that should cause “outrage”, I’m not sure that they are necessarily more important than protecting the right to offend.
I don’t suppose the Tesco act was a deliberate act of offence-causing, but the apology was a deliberate act in the other direction and I don’t think Tesco should have done it – or indeed pulled the ad at all. And I don’t think certain Christians should have asked for or called for or welcomed the apology either. Just the opposite I'd have thought.
Why? Because we pay special regard to not offending the religious – any religious – at our peril. If people want to be part of private members’ clubs with sets of beliefs and practices, that’s up to them and I’d defend roundly their rights to do so. I also though think that they overreach when they expect others to respect those beliefs and practices. If we do that, how should we decide which faiths deserve this privileged treatment and which do not? And even if we could decide that, how should we decide which parts of one exceptional faith are fine to ridicule or not? Most would I agree I think that prohibiting blood transfusions for dying children is loopy and wrong – would it be so bad then if the blood transfusion service ran an ad along the lines of, “Don’t let the Jehovah’s Witnesses kill children: donate blood”?
See, that’s the thing with protecting some religious beliefs from offence. Offence is taken, not given and once the principle is established that it’s the other way around then there’s no knowing where it will end. That’s why to many killing cartoonists for drawing Mohammed seemed just fine and dandy. Free speech – whether polemical argument or ads for booze – is far more important than protecting anyone’s right not to feel offended.
And why should Christians support the right to run the ad? Because it’s the exact same freedom of speech that protects their right to say and do as they please too. I happen to find a lot of things said by Christians to be offensive, and for that matter I find walking my children past buildings with models of a man nailed to a cross in the front garden pretty offensive too. Should I ask for these things to be prohibited or withdrawn, maybe with an apology to follow?
Never in a million years. If I’m offended, that’s my problem. As Stephen Fry memorably said in reply to the complaint, “You can’t say that because I’m offended by it”…
…”So fucking what?”
(See what I did there with an offensive word?)
Non sequitur to what Tesco's did or didn't do.
By offence we should be offending with the truth....Not clever turdpolishing.....not by celebrity..........not with '' professional comedians.''
-
Rose#45 and bluehillside #47
Very strongly agree.
-
Wtf does 'By offence we should be offending with the truth' mean?
-
Vlad,
Non sequitur to what Tesco's did or didn't do.
Dear god man, will you ever find out what non sequitur actually means?
By offence we should be offending with the truth....Not clever turdpolishing.....not by celebrity..........not with '' professional comedians.''
Presumably you thought you were expressing a coherent thought when you typed that? Any clues as to what that thought might have been?
Anything?
Oh, and I see that the argument I actually made went about 32,000 feet above your head. Oh well.
-
NS,
Wtf does 'By offence we should be offending with the truth' mean?
Nothing. It's gibberish.
-
Vlad,
Dear god man, will you ever find out what non sequitur actually means?
Presumably you thought you were expressing a coherent thought when you types that? Any clues as to what that thought might have been?
Anything?
Oh, and I see that the argument I actually made went about 32,000 feet above your head. Oh well.
Nah, Antitheist Chappy, Your piece was just a standard World of new atheism release (from what end i'm not sure).
-
Wtf does 'By offence we should be offending with the truth' mean?
Man insensed by trivialisation of outrage, outraged by non standard English?
-
Vlad,
Nah, Antitheist Chappy, Your piece was just a standard World of new atheism release (from what end i'm not sure).
There was nothing "antitheist", atheist or theist about it. It was actually about the primacy of freedom of speech over the right not to be offended. If you tried reading it again perhaps the argument would become apparent, assuming that is you don't want to continue with your attempted derail.
-
Vlad,
Man insensed by trivialisation of outrage, outraged by non standard English?
Non-standard English if fine; incomprehensible word salad isn't. If you want to communicate something, you need to express it in coherent language.
-
Vlad,
There was nothing "antitheist", atheist or theist about it. It was actually about the primacy of freedom of speech over the right not to be offended. If you tried reading it again perhaps the argument would become apparent, assuming that is you don't want to continue with your attempted derail.
The derail has come from you. The issue is Tesco's not some polemic about the licence antitheism has to be nasty to a group of people they don't like.
-
Let's be honest: for Christians: Good Friday is good. From their point of view, it's the day that God stepped in and took responsibility for their sins and took their death sentence in their place. What's not good about that?
Then Tesco offer some cheap alcohol to help them celebrate. That surely makes it even better. I don't see what's wrong with this advert.
-
Let's be honest: for Christians: Good Friday is good. From their point of view, it's the day that God stepped in and took responsibility for their sins and took their death sentence in their place. What's not good about that?
Then Tesco offer some cheap alcohol to help them celebrate. That surely makes it even better. I don't see what's wrong with this advert.
I see Tesco's saw fit not to agree with you.....I wonder why.
-
Vlad,
The derail has come from you. The issue is Tesco's not some polemic about the licence antitheism has to be nasty to a group of people they don't like.
Whoosh!
-
I see Tesco's saw fit not to agree with you.....I wonder why.
Because I'm not trying to sell stuff to delicate snow flakes that cry when you hurt their ickle feelings.
-
Because I'm not trying to sell stuff to delicate snow flakes that cry when you hurt their ickle feelings.
Yes but where does disinterest stop and enjoying it because people might be upset by an example of an ad populum begin?
-
Vlad,
Yes but where does disinterest stop and enjoying it because people might be upset by an example of an ad populum begin?
First, there was no "ad populum". Tesco weren't arguing for anything - they were just trying to sell comestibles.
Second, whether people enjoy other people being upset is by magnitudes less important than protecting freedom of speech – exactly the same freedom of speech that allows the Christians who complained to say and do as they please. Stephen Fry’s quote again.
You’re awful confused here.
-
Vlad,
First, there was no "ad populum". Tesco weren't arguing for anything - they were just trying to sell comestibles.
Second, whether people enjoy other people being upset is by magnitudes less important than protecting freedom of speech – exactly the same freedom of speech that allows the Christians who complained to say and do as they please. Stephen Fry’s quote again.
You’re awful confused here.
Non sequitur plus gratuitous use of celebrity?
-
Vlad,
Non sequitur plus gratuitous use of celebrity?
Neither.
First, when you try to use terms like non sequitur when you obviously don’t have the first idea what they mean you just exit yourself from the conversation. You asserted that Tesco tried an argumentum ad populum, and I explained why they did not. There’s no non sequitur there at all.
Second, the “celebrity” or otherwise of Stephen Fry is neither here nor there. The only point that’s relevant is the force of his argument – which is that, “You can’t say that because I’m offended by it” is not a good reason for not saying something.
I note too that the basic point that freedom of speech is something we all – Christians included – should hold dear rather than attack so as to protect our feelings has passed you by entirely.
Why is that?
-
Vlad,
Neither.
First, when you try to use terms like non sequitur when you obviously don’t have the first idea what they mean you just exit yourself from the conversation. You asserted that Tesco tried an argumentum ad populum, and I explained why they did not. There’s no non sequitur there at all.
Second, the “celebrity” or otherwise of Stephen Fry is neither here nor there. The only point that’s relevant is the force of his argument – which is that, “You can’t say that because I’m offended by it” is not a good reason for not saying something.
I note too that the basic point that freedom of speech is something we all – Christians included – should hold dear rather than attack so as to protect our feelings has passed you by entirely.
Why is that?
Any argument which depends on an appeal to the majority is a bad one. Goodness knows you guys keep banging on about that sort of thing.
Free speech is non sequitur to this thread which I started. What Tesco put was out of crassness and ignorance. It isn't a great blow for free speech or are you just trying to treat us to virtuoso turdpolishing?
-
Vlad,
Any argument which depends on an appeal to the majority is a bad one.
Again, there was no "argument" - it was just an advertising slogan. Why are you lying about that?
Goodness knows you guys keep banging on about that sort of thing.
You made a(nother) mistake, I corrected it. Where's the "banging on"?
Free speech is non sequitur to this thread....
FOR FUCK'S SAKE - THAT'S NOT WHAT NON SEQUITUR MEANS!!! WHY THE HELL DON'T YOU JUST LOOK IT UP OR SOMETHING?
AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
What you're trying to say is irrelevant.
...which I started.
Indeed you did, and the freedom of speech issue explains why your position was wrong when you did it.
What Tesco put was out of crassness and ignorance.
By "put" do you mean the ad or its withdrawal and the craven apology? You may think the ad to be crass and ignorant, though if it did the job of selling more booze then it seems quite effective to me. If you mean the withdrawal and apology, then I agree - they shouldn't have done it for the reasons I set out earlier that you either just ignored or misrepresented.
It isn't a great blow for free speech or are you just trying to treat us to virtuoso turdpolishing?
The former. Free speech isn't a pick what you like buffet - "I'll defend it when it suits me, but attack it when the same freedom exercised by others offends me". Freedom speech is freedom speech whether or not you like what's said or it's nothing. People who want the freedom to express their religious beliefs should be aware of the potential consequences if they try to deny it to others.
-
On the whole I agree with Rose, we live in a secular society and can't expect anyone to pay attention to religion but, Rose, do you see Christians being miserable because of Good Friday? I've not seen that in my entire life,even in the days when I was a kid & Christianity was taught in school and shops weren't open. I'm surprised you said that but accept your experience may be different to mine. All I can say is you've met some weird Christians.
Even Muslims during Ramadan don't spread misery around. They fast as much as they can, depending on their job and health & it's their business. If we didn't know it was Ramadan we'd never guess unless we offered refreshment & it was turned down.
-
Tesco has upset a lot of christians, yes?
ippy
-
From what the article said,seems so. I've not heard of it other than that & none on here seem bothered.
-
Tesco give hope of employment to utter numpties.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39587226
I think Tesco's ad was in very poor taste, whether you are religious or not. Crucifixion was a terrible way for anyone to die. :o
-
Tesco didn't mention crucifixion though. Christ's crucifixion only means something to Christians, doubt anyone else even thinks of it.
Yesterday's news! A mountain out of molehill and all forgotten by Monday. Makes me think the media are scratching around for something to say.
Other supermarkets had similar offers.
-
Tesco didn't mention crucifixion though. Christ's crucifixion only means something to Christians, doubt anyone else even thinks of it.
Yesterday's news! A mountain out of molehill and all forgotten by Monday. Makes me think the media are scratching around for something to say.
Other supermarkets had similar offers.
But they mentioned Good Friday, and Good Friday is all about the crucifixion.
-
I think Tesco's ad was in very poor taste, whether you are religious or not. Crucifixion was a terrible way for anyone to die. :o
Wouldn't that imply calling Good Friday "Good" was in very poor taste?
-
But they mentioned Good Friday, and Good Friday is all about the crucifixion.
Please stop calling crucifixion good. You're being very tasteless. :)