Originally posted by Ryan82SM
Originally posted by SamGamgee
Originally posted by flabeer
Originally posted by obguthr
Originally posted by kryptic
Originally posted by SamGamgee
Lame. I can’t imagine ever changing a label because someone was offended by it. I also can’t imagine that Hindus not buying this beer would have any significant negative impact on sales. It’s their choice not to buy it. No reason to throw a fit over it. People can be so petty about stuff like this.
It’d be interesting if somehow we could know exactly how big the market of American Hindus that drink craft beer and are so ultra religious that they would be totally offended by the label. (and if you are that religious, what are you doing desecrating your God given body/temple/whatever with alcohol anyway?) I have a feeling that you are right. It would have zero effect on the sales.
I’m pretty sure the potential loss of sales from the Hindu community, or even Hindu sympathizers, had nothing at all to do with the brewery’s decision. They sound like a considerate outfit that didn’t want to offend anyone. They should be commended.
The brewery was confronted with a choice. They chose the high road rather than sticking to their guns at the risk of offending someone. BTW, was this a group that complained about the label or just a single nut-job?
I would argue that the complaining party took the low road to begin with, when they could have just ignored the beer and made it a non-issue. The whole premise of going out of your way to tell a company that an image that they use is offensive to you and that they should change it so as not to offend your sensibilities is ridiculous. They should be ashamed of themselves.
So, I’m sure that not a single Atheist would be offended if I made, let’s say, Dawkins’ Irration-Ale? Just a thought.
I’m not saying that you do not have the right to be offended. You certainly have the right to feel however you want about the use of a symbol, image, or anything for that matter. What I’m saying, is that you do not have the right to impose your views on someone else by arguing that something that they are doing that is completely within the law is offensive to you, and that they need to change what they are doing so that you do not feel that way. You do NOT have the right to never be offended by something that someone else does.
It would personally be very difficult to offend me because I have a thick skin and a cool head about stuff like this, but I guess some people fly off the rails when they see a picture that they don’t like. It’s very arrogant to assume that your personal feelings are important enough to warrant changing someone’s completely legal actions that arguably have no real effect on you. |
Originally posted by Ryan82SM
Originally posted by SamGamgee
Originally posted by flabeer
Originally posted by obguthr
Originally posted by kryptic
Originally posted by SamGamgee
Lame. I can’t imagine ever changing a label because someone was offended by it. I also can’t imagine that Hindus not buying this beer would have any significant negative impact on sales. It’s their choice not to buy it. No reason to throw a fit over it. People can be so petty about stuff like this.
It’d be interesting if somehow we could know exactly how big the market of American Hindus that drink craft beer and are so ultra religious that they would be totally offended by the label. (and if you are that religious, what are you doing desecrating your God given body/temple/whatever with alcohol anyway?) I have a feeling that you are right. It would have zero effect on the sales.
I’m pretty sure the potential loss of sales from the Hindu community, or even Hindu sympathizers, had nothing at all to do with the brewery’s decision. They sound like a considerate outfit that didn’t want to offend anyone. They should be commended.
The brewery was confronted with a choice. They chose the high road rather than sticking to their guns at the risk of offending someone. BTW, was this a group that complained about the label or just a single nut-job?
I would argue that the complaining party took the low road to begin with, when they could have just ignored the beer and made it a non-issue. The whole premise of going out of your way to tell a company that an image that they use is offensive to you and that they should change it so as not to offend your sensibilities is ridiculous. They should be ashamed of themselves.
So, I’m sure that not a single Atheist would be offended if I made, let’s say, Dawkins’ Irration-Ale? Just a thought.
Would the point be that Dawkins is irrational? How terribly offensive! |
Originally posted by Erlangernick
Originally posted by Ryan82SM
Originally posted by SamGamgee
Originally posted by flabeer
Originally posted by obguthr
Originally posted by kryptic
Originally posted by SamGamgee
Lame. I can’t imagine ever changing a label because someone was offended by it. I also can’t imagine that Hindus not buying this beer would have any significant negative impact on sales. It’s their choice not to buy it. No reason to throw a fit over it. People can be so petty about stuff like this.
It’d be interesting if somehow we could know exactly how big the market of American Hindus that drink craft beer and are so ultra religious that they would be totally offended by the label. (and if you are that religious, what are you doing desecrating your God given body/temple/whatever with alcohol anyway?) I have a feeling that you are right. It would have zero effect on the sales.
I’m pretty sure the potential loss of sales from the Hindu community, or even Hindu sympathizers, had nothing at all to do with the brewery’s decision. They sound like a considerate outfit that didn’t want to offend anyone. They should be commended.
The brewery was confronted with a choice. They chose the high road rather than sticking to their guns at the risk of offending someone. BTW, was this a group that complained about the label or just a single nut-job?
I would argue that the complaining party took the low road to begin with, when they could have just ignored the beer and made it a non-issue. The whole premise of going out of your way to tell a company that an image that they use is offensive to you and that they should change it so as not to offend your sensibilities is ridiculous. They should be ashamed of themselves.
So, I’m sure that not a single Atheist would be offended if I made, let’s say, Dawkins’ Irration-Ale? Just a thought.
Would the point be that Dawkins is irrational? How terribly offensive!
It’s a great beer name, right? |
|
|
Originally posted by SamGamgee
Originally posted by Ryan82SM
Originally posted by SamGamgee
Originally posted by flabeer
Originally posted by obguthr
Originally posted by kryptic
Originally posted by SamGamgee
Lame. I can’t imagine ever changing a label because someone was offended by it. I also can’t imagine that Hindus not buying this beer would have any significant negative impact on sales. It’s their choice not to buy it. No reason to throw a fit over it. People can be so petty about stuff like this.
It’d be interesting if somehow we could know exactly how big the market of American Hindus that drink craft beer and are so ultra religious that they would be totally offended by the label. (and if you are that religious, what are you doing desecrating your God given body/temple/whatever with alcohol anyway?) I have a feeling that you are right. It would have zero effect on the sales.
I’m pretty sure the potential loss of sales from the Hindu community, or even Hindu sympathizers, had nothing at all to do with the brewery’s decision. They sound like a considerate outfit that didn’t want to offend anyone. They should be commended.
The brewery was confronted with a choice. They chose the high road rather than sticking to their guns at the risk of offending someone. BTW, was this a group that complained about the label or just a single nut-job?
I would argue that the complaining party took the low road to begin with, when they could have just ignored the beer and made it a non-issue. The whole premise of going out of your way to tell a company that an image that they use is offensive to you and that they should change it so as not to offend your sensibilities is ridiculous. They should be ashamed of themselves.
So, I’m sure that not a single Atheist would be offended if I made, let’s say, Dawkins’ Irration-Ale? Just a thought.
I’m not saying that you do not have the right to be offended. You certainly have the right to feel however you want about the use of a symbol, image, or anything for that matter. What I’m saying, is that you do not have the right to impose your views on someone else by arguing that something that they are doing that is completely within the law is offensive to you, and that they need to change what they are doing so that you do not feel that way. You do NOT have the right to never be offended by something that someone else does.
It would personally be very difficult to offend me because I have a thick skin and a cool head about stuff like this, but I guess some people fly off the rails when they see a picture that they don’t like. It’s very arrogant to assume that your personal feelings are important enough to warrant changing someone’s completely legal actions that arguably have no real effect on you.
Thanks for the clear up; this seems consistent. |
Originally posted by SamGamgee
Originally posted by Ryan82SM
Originally posted by SamGamgee
Originally posted by flabeer
Originally posted by obguthr
Originally posted by kryptic
Originally posted by SamGamgee
Lame. I can’t imagine ever changing a label because someone was offended by it. I also can’t imagine that Hindus not buying this beer would have any significant negative impact on sales. It’s their choice not to buy it. No reason to throw a fit over it. People can be so petty about stuff like this.
It’d be interesting if somehow we could know exactly how big the market of American Hindus that drink craft beer and are so ultra religious that they would be totally offended by the label. (and if you are that religious, what are you doing desecrating your God given body/temple/whatever with alcohol anyway?) I have a feeling that you are right. It would have zero effect on the sales.
I’m pretty sure the potential loss of sales from the Hindu community, or even Hindu sympathizers, had nothing at all to do with the brewery’s decision. They sound like a considerate outfit that didn’t want to offend anyone. They should be commended.
The brewery was confronted with a choice. They chose the high road rather than sticking to their guns at the risk of offending someone. BTW, was this a group that complained about the label or just a single nut-job?
I would argue that the complaining party took the low road to begin with, when they could have just ignored the beer and made it a non-issue. The whole premise of going out of your way to tell a company that an image that they use is offensive to you and that they should change it so as not to offend your sensibilities is ridiculous. They should be ashamed of themselves.
So, I’m sure that not a single Atheist would be offended if I made, let’s say, Dawkins’ Irration-Ale? Just a thought.
I’m not saying that you do not have the right to be offended. You certainly have the right to feel however you want about the use of a symbol, image, or anything for that matter. What I’m saying, is that you do not have the right to impose your views on someone else by arguing that something that they are doing that is completely within the law is offensive to you, and that they need to change what they are doing so that you do not feel that way. You do NOT have the right to never be offended by something that someone else does.
It would personally be very difficult to offend me because I have a thick skin and a cool head about stuff like this, but I guess some people fly off the rails when they see a picture that they don’t like. It’s very arrogant to assume that your personal feelings are important enough to warrant changing someone’s completely legal actions that arguably have no real effect on you.
This! |
