Originally posted by dcschiller
Originally posted by miketd
GB’s "Bill of Responsibilities" # 3:
3. Because I have freedom of speech, I have the responsibility to defend the speech of others, even if I strongly disagree with what they’re saying.
I guess you missed that one.
Mike, we’re really getting into 2 different arguments here. One is the Constitutional issue that you brought up. It’s your Constitutional right to think that the label issue is a whole lot of nothing. You are failing to understand why the label is offensive to some Hindus. And that’s ok, but I’m going to use my right to free speech to tell you that you don’t understand it.
The real issue is Burnside did the right thing. They had every right to print that label and run with it. They also have the insight to realize that it’s not that big a deal to change the label because it does offend a segment of society. There is no benefit to Burnside to escalate the sitution. Per the article, Burnside and the Hindu group that brought this up seem to be content with the solution. The actual parties that this issue affects are happy with the result. I just don’t know why you or anyone else has a problem with it. 
I generally don’t go out of my way to offend people or organizations, so I would not have done what Burnside did in the first place. I just don’t like people thinking the HAD to take action; they didn’t.
I was just arguing for argument’s sake. Last night was a bit hazy... and I haven’t been in OTM for a long time. 
|
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. |
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. |
|
|
who gives a shit..
its a beer - you don’t like the name of it, don’t buy it..
religion ruins everything. |
Originally posted by SudsMcDuff
religion ruins everything.
I’d argue that it’s those whom misguidedly practice and misuse religion, coupled with general intolerance, whether one is religious or not...which makes makes the world a less-harmonious place for ALL of us to inhabit.
And, for the record, I am not religious. Spiritual, yes, but not religious.
Carry on.
 |
What would they think of Brahma, and Brahma Chopp from Brazil. And I have never met a person from India who didn’t love beer.
So let us now go to Thor’s Hall, Gladsheim, where we shall work at our crafts, and drink the best beer in the Nine Worlds.
troopie |
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. |
|
|
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? |
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. |
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. |
