ishkabible

« If you're hosting Thanksgiving, make sure your guests sign this | Main | Christianity and movies »

November 21, 2005

BREAKING NEWS! Burger King makes its burgers from ...

COWS!

The (London) Telegraph reports:

An advert featuring a cow wearing a Burger King logo has provoked more than 70 complaints, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has said.

The industry watchdog has launched an investigation after viewers said that the commercial was distasteful and cruel.

It shows a cow walking along in a field wearing a Burger King-branded blanket.

"Burger King advert 'offensive to cows'," news.telegraph, November 17, 2005

AdJab responds:

I guess Burger King's only recourse is to make a commercial where they explain that hamburgers don't actually come from cattle, but are actually brought here in giant bags carried by storks.

"Burger King's burgers are made from cows," AdJab, November 19, 2005

As Homer Simpson might say, "Mmmmmmmmmm, hamburgers in giant bags carried by storks...." or more likely, "Mmmmmmmmmm, giant hamburgers in bags carried by storks...."

But what is all this "not wanting to cause offence" stuff? First it was lids on ice cream, then Piglet from Winnie the Pooh, and now cows ... what's next?

I thought the English were the folks with the stiff upper lip and all that, but they're starting to seem a bit of a thin-skinned lot to me ... sounds like they could use Panexa ...

Reminds me of something Chuck Williams wrote:

I agree that everyone has a First Amendment right to Piss on Christ and Dung on the Holy Virgin to their hearts' content.

All I'm saying is that it does raise the question of why. Well, it does to some of us Catholics, anyway. And it's not a particularly shallow question, I don't think. I mean, if you know that what you're doing will insult somebody and you go ahead and do it anyway, it seems to me you'd expect that one or two of those somebodies might eventually demand an explanation.

But as far as I can tell, the museum's answer to that and every other reasonable question has been, "Shut up."

And then, even if the "why" is answered, even if the museum board or some brainy critic can explain how the artist has an avant-garde reason for insulting my religion (I'm not saying he doesn't), and even if he has a solid First Amendment right to insult my religion (and I'm saying he does), why must the board's supporters act shocked and appalled when I then say well, OK, but I still don't think you should use the government to force Catholics to pay the board to insult us. And it is brute force we're talking about here: if you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail.

The appropriate answer to would-be censors is to say, "if you don't like it, don't look at it." Or just don't read it, or just don't listen to it. The reason that retort doesn't work here is that the Catholic guy isn't complaining that anybody's forcing Catholics to look at Dung on the Virgin. He's complaining that Catholics are being forced to pay for it. He's saying, go ahead and Dung on the Virgin anywhere you like. Just do it on your own dime, or on your fellow Catholic-bashers' dime. Just don't do it on the taxpayers' dime.

Offence, shmoffence ... offend away ... just don't force me to look at it or hear it or make me pay for it ... if I don't like something your business does, I stay away ... or organize a girlcott ...

Also, be sure to see "If you're hosting Thanksgiving, make sure your guests sign this"

Posted at November 21, 2005 08:06 AM | Categories: Stupidity

Comments

Post a comment