Harrods apology over Hindu bikinis

[Crown]

Then you wouldn't be bitchin' about the fact that they are on panties, would you? What, do you require a diagram?

No, but I think you do because you completely missed the point of what I said.

Oh you mean the 'point' where you take a completely arbitrary biased hypothetical in order to 'prove' that people who are easily offended by their deity being warn as a but floss, are behaving highly irrationally?

Wow. Too bad for you, that most people with even half a brain intrinsically realise that to believe in a deity in the first place would be the prime indicator of irrational behaviour. Dumbass.

People can take offense at anything they please, the only reason Harrods is appologising is because theres enough Hindus in London to hurt their business by not shopping there.

Thanks for the economics class in retail 101 there genius. Did you sit up all night figuring that out?

[kojikun]

Oh you mean the 'point' where you take a completely arbitrary biased hypothetical in order to 'prove' that people who are easily offended by their deity being warn as a but floss, are behaving highly irrationally?

Actually, I wasn't making a point that they were acting irrationally, I was making a point that they were being oversensitive. Way to be a jackass.

Thanks for the economics class in retail 101 there genius. Did you sit up all night figuring that out?

Are you trying to be an asshole, or are you just devolving into a troll?

[Crown]

Oh you mean the 'point' where you take a completely arbitrary biased hypothetical in order to 'prove' that people who are easily offended by their deity being warn as a but floss, are behaving highly irrationally?

Actually, I wasn't making a point that they were acting irrationally, I was making a point that they were being oversensitive. Way to be a jackass.

Way to cut off the other part of my post you little fucker. And what exactly is 'oversensitive' if not an irrational behaviour?

Thanks for the economics class in retail 101 there genius. Did you sit up all night figuring that out?

Are you trying to be an asshole, or are you just devolving into a troll?

You made the accusation you little spammer, now of course you will provide evidence of me trolling ... right?

[Sarevok]

Hindus are very sensitive about their gods. A few years back when an artist drew a naked picture of durga he was sent death threats and was forced to destroy the artwork.

[Crown]

Hindus are very sensitive about their gods. A few years back when an artist drew a naked picture of durga he was sent death threats and was forced to destroy the artwork.

Any fundy is overly sensitive about how their god(s) are depicted. That is the point.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

It seems stupid the store had to apologize. They did nothing wrong. They should have zero say over what you wear, and if they say it's offensive, so? Lots of things are offensive to some. Offensive is an opinion, not a universal fact.


Maybe I find it offensive for them to wear religious memorabilia. Does that mean no one can sell it because I say so? Hindu religion could be offensive to someone else.

I am surprised people didn't protest some Monty Python movies (and have them destroyed), since it makes a "mockery" of a religion.

[salm]

lol.

You're missing the point, so it's time to play a game. Substitute the words:
"mother" with "Ganesha"
"a Hindu" with "salm"
and try telling me again that it isn't disrespectful to put Ganesha on underwear:

Putting salm's mother on my underwear would be disrespectful [amongst other things] to salm, but could draw a shrug of the shoulders from a Hindu.

no. you´re missing the point. if i knew that you´re not a stalker, which would be the case if my mother were some all powerful being like ganesha and i would not know if you were using the underwear in order to disrespect her i wouldn´t give a shit.
i´d might think you´re a fucking weirdo, but i also think that of people who enjoy eating other people´s shit, too.
but then, just because i personally think that somebody is a weirdo i wouldn´t want them to stop whatever they´re doing as long as it doesn´t harm anyone.
niether my mom nor ganesha on undies necessarily harms anybody.

[salm]

esspecially if my mom were a prominent person like ganesha.

[BoredShirtless]

snip a bunch of "what if's" regarding your mum

You've messed up this debate with a lot of personal opinions on how you would feel if your mum was this or that and your opinion of me putting her on my undies if she was this or that...none of that matters. The point is it was disrespectful of Harrods to put Ganesha on undies as Hindus went stir crazy when they heard the news. The end result was Harrods backpedalled.

Just to reiterate; you may think it isn't disrespectful, but clearly the outcry led by the Hindus says otherwise.

And do you really think Harrods would have conceeded if it was just the "fundies" who did the crying? If so, you don't comprehend marketing.

[salm]

You've messed up this debate with a lot of personal opinions on how you would feel if your mum was this or that and your opinion of me putting her on my undies if she was this or that...none of that matters.

so i messed up this debate by answereing your question? interesting.
if i may quote you:

So you'd feel nothing if I took a picture of your mother and screened it onto the crotch of my underwear?

i then answered your question with different answers for different circumstances. now you claim that i messed up the debate. wierd, really.

The point is it was disrespectful of Harrods to put Ganesha on undies as Hindus went stir crazy when they heard the news. The end result was Harrods backpedalled.

a couple of fundie hindus thought it was disrespectful. this IS all about personal oppinion since there´s nothing objective about something being respectful or not. if there is please present your evidence that something is disrespectful simply because it´s close to your ass or simply because some people claim that it is.
there´s this christian fundy site that claims that almost all films are disrespectful. their reasons are foul language, portaiying magic, demons etc. etc.
i forgot the name but i´m sure you know what i´m talking about since it comes up on sd.net every once in a while.
that´s basicly the same thing. fundies claiming that something is disrespectful even though it´s non of their business.

Just to reiterate; you may think it isn't disrespectful, but clearly the outcry led by the Hindus says otherwise.

and that´s totally irrelevant. every now and then there´s a bunch of nazis who think that having foringers in ones country is disrespectful and therefore want these foreigners out of their country.
these nazis need to shut up the same way as the hindus.

And do you really think Harrods would have conceeded if it was just the "fundies" who did the crying? If so, you don't comprehend marketing.

i don´t know. perhaps the fundies stirred up a whole bunch of shit and harrods decided to take the relevant objects out of their collection just in case.
this is irrelevant anyway. the question is if it´s moral to sell ganesha undies or not. marketing doesn´t give a shit about morality.
marketing is based on ad populums because they want to sell to the populum and can´t do this in case the populum is annoyed no matter if them being annoyed is justified or not.

[ArmorPierce]

Let me ask you. Are you offended by people that uses your countries flag as doormats? People uses nation's flags as doormats so that people will walk over the flag. This is akin to that.

[salm]

Let me ask you. Are you offended by people that uses your countries flag as doormats? People uses nation's flags as doormats so that people will walk over the flag. This is akin to that.

no. personally i don´t care about flags at all.
i´ve got a towl with the american flag on it. i use it to dry myself, including my dick, nuts and ass with it every once in a while after showering.
is that offending to you? if yes, why?

as said before, i might find it offending if i knew that the person using the ganesha undies or in this case the flag in order to be offending as underwear or door mat.

but you can´t generalize this since there might be and probably are people who use these objects without wanting to disrespect them.

it really depends on what somebody wants to do or express with his actions.

saying that ganesha undies or flag door mats are offending by definition is nothing but a generalization.

[Bugsby]

Come ON, people! There was no mailicious intent behind this... its a simple design that a bunch of overly sensitive people got pissed about. I remember when I was 3 I had a pair of Mario underwear. Yet I don't recall Nintendo suing Froot of the Loom over the amount of times I crapped on their beloved icon. I know its not the same thing, but my general point still stands. At worst it is in poor taste.

[Darth Wong]

Harrod's had to apologize because they're a mainstream store, and mainstream stores try to avoid controversy. But if you're not a big mainstream store you can get away with stuff like that; just look at Divine Interventions.

Anyway, Hindus are fucked up; that ethnic caste-system bullshit of theirs is every bit as offensive as apartheid, if not more so. It's not surprising that they'd act like whiny bitches about this; it's the same as the Christians who send hate mail to Divine Interventions.

[Sarevok]

Well the caste system is officialy outlawed in India. However it is still practiced in some ways in certain parts of the countries. For example Dalits are considered untouchables.

[BoredShirtless]

You've messed up this debate with a lot of personal opinions on how you would feel if your mum was this or that and your opinion of me putting her on my undies if she was this or that...none of that matters.

so i messed up this debate by answereing your question? interesting.
if i may quote you:

So you'd feel nothing if I took a picture of your mother and screened it onto the crotch of my underwear?

i then answered your question with different answers for different circumstances. now you claim that i messed up the debate. wierd, really.

Well, I thought you spent too much time on that "what if", and not enough on the issue.

The point is it was disrespectful of Harrods to put Ganesha on undies as Hindus went stir crazy when they heard the news. The end result was Harrods backpedalled.

a couple of fundie hindus thought it was disrespectful.

Really? Only a couple of fundies thought it was disrespectful? I asked two Indian friends of mine what they thought, and they didn't like it at all; they are not fundies FYI. Of course two people is hardly a good sample to draw a conclusion from, but it should still make you question your own outlook on this issue.

this IS all about personal oppinion since there´s nothing objective about something being respectful or not.

I know. What you seem to be failing to understand is that YOUR opinion on this matter is pretty much irrelevant for a few reasons:
1. You're not Hindu, so your opinion on whether this is disrespect or not is not worth as much as a Hindu's opinion [assuming the Hindu isn't a Fundie of course]
2. You're one person; I'd put more weight on an opinion that something is disrespectful if a crowd of people say it is versus one man saying it isn't.

if there is please present your evidence that something is disrespectful simply because it´s close to your ass or simply because some people claim that it is.

Do you realise you're asking me to prove respect is subjective?

there´s this christian fundy site that claims that almost all films are disrespectful. their reasons are foul language, portaiying magic, demons etc. etc.
i forgot the name but i´m sure you know what i´m talking about since it comes up on sd.net every once in a while.
that´s basicly the same thing. fundies claiming that something is disrespectful even though it´s non of their business.

The above clearly shows the heart of our argument; you think it's only the fundies who have the problem, while I think MOST Hindus would have the problem. Not that most would actively protest [write letters, picket Harrods], but most WOULD passively protest [not shop at Harrods for example], and clearly Harrods agrees or they wouldn't have conceeded.

Just to reiterate; you may think it isn't disrespectful, but clearly the outcry led by the Hindus says otherwise.

and that´s totally irrelevant.

how?

every now and then there´s a bunch of nazis who think that having foringers in ones country is disrespectful and therefore want these foreigners out of their country.
these nazis need to shut up the same way as the hindus.

And do you really think Harrods would have conceeded if it was just the "fundies" who did the crying? If so, you don't comprehend marketing.

i don´t know. perhaps the fundies stirred up a whole bunch of shit and harrods decided to take the relevant objects out of their collection just in case.

I'm sure that is true to a certain extent. But ask yourself this: does your average Christian pay any attention to REAL fundies like the guys you quoted above, raving about foul language in movies and what not?

this is irrelevant anyway. the question is if it´s moral to sell ganesha undies or not.

Actually, the question was "is it disrespectful?", but I'll change course with you.

In my opinion, it isn't moral. I'm not religious, however I respect peoples rights to practice religion, and IMHO it is disrespectful to put the creator of the Universe and their own life onto underwear. There is a line, and underwear crosses it.

marketing doesn´t give a shit about morality.

Please don't make me laugh.

marketing is based on ad populums because they want to sell to the populum and can´t do this in case the populum is annoyed no matter if them being annoyed is justified or not.

So marketing doesn't give a shit about morality, however marketing won't work if the population is annoyed? And what would annoy the population, exactly? Something which isn't...moral by any chance?

[salm]

Well, I thought you spent too much time on that "what if", and not enough on the issue.

well, the what if is the most important issue.

Really? Only a couple of fundies thought it was disrespectful? I asked two Indian friends of mine what they thought, and they didn't like it at all; they are not fundies FYI. Of course two people is hardly a good sample to draw a conclusion from, but it should still make you question your own outlook on this issue.

perhaps it´s more than just a couple of fundies. anyway, imo they´re being over sensitive and are trying to force their views down other people´s throats.

I know. What you seem to be failing to understand is that YOUR opinion on this matter is pretty much irrelevant for a few reasons:
1. You're not Hindu, so your opinion on whether this is disrespect or not is not worth as much as a Hindu's opinion [assuming the Hindu isn't a Fundie of course]

my religion is pretty much irrelevant since i might want to wear ganesha underwear ot at least want the moral right to wear it.

2. You're one person; I'd put more weight on an opinion that something is disrespectful if a crowd of people say it is versus one man saying it isn't.

if you want to appeal to popularity that´s your problem.
furthermore, do you really think that more people think that it´s disrespectful. i honestly neither know nor care, but i´m sure that i´m not the only one who supports my point.

Do you realise you're asking me to prove respect is subjective?

no. i was asking you to prove that respect is not subjective because your posts appeared to be claiming so:

The point is it was disrespectful of Harrods...

The above clearly shows the heart of our argument; you think it's only the fundies who have the problem, while I think MOST Hindus would have the problem. Not that most would actively protest [write letters, picket Harrods], but most WOULD passively protest [not shop at Harrods for example], and clearly Harrods agrees or they wouldn't have conceeded.

that might be true.
but i still think it´s wrong for the reasons given in my last post.

Just to reiterate; you may think it isn't disrespectful, but clearly the outcry led by the Hindus says otherwise.

and that´s totally irrelevant.

i gave you the reason. you even quoted it bellow.

i can´t see what´s wrong about the nazi analogy. principly it´s the same thing.

I'm sure that is true to a certain extent. But ask yourself this: does your average Christian pay any attention to REAL fundies like the guys you quoted above, raving about foul language in movies and what not?

i´m not sure. i guess so. just look at the us. there are a whole bunch of more fundies there than here and stuff like foul language is really considered something bad. at least that´s my personal experience from several visits to relatives and school exchanges.

Actually, the question was "is it disrespectful?", but I'll change course with you.

isn´t that basicly the same?

In my opinion, it isn't moral. I'm not religious, however I respect peoples rights to practice religion, and IMHO it is disrespectful to put the creator of the Universe and their own life onto underwear. There is a line, and underwear crosses it.

so? what about ganesha pillars? are they degrading because they´re compelled to carry the weight of buildings for ordinary humans? shouldn´t it be the other way round, that the worthless humans carry the weight of the gods houses?

or is a ganesha pillar something that honors ganesha by thankfully depicting him as the supporter of an object absolutely necessary for everybody´s daily life.

there are certainly always two different angles from which you can see things. that´s why i think that stuff like this can be disrespectful but isn´t necessarily disrespectful/amoral/whatever.

Please don't make me laugh.

why would you?

So marketing doesn't give a shit about morality, however marketing won't work if the population is annoyed? And what would annoy the population, exactly? Something which isn't...moral by any chance?

or something that excapes their narrowminded brains and seems amoral to them but in fact can be otherwise.


the basic questions of this debate are:

do you think that diffferent people can have different way of showing respect/disrespect?

is it relevant that different people have different ways of showing respect/disrespect, or should everybody adopt the ways of a certain group?

[BoredShirtless]

Well, I thought you spent too much time on that "what if", and not enough on the issue.

well, the what if is the most important issue.

The analogy of your mum is the most important issue? I don't think so.

Really? Only a couple of fundies thought it was disrespectful? I asked two Indian friends of mine what they thought, and they didn't like it at all; they are not fundies FYI. Of course two people is hardly a good sample to draw a conclusion from, but it should still make you question your own outlook on this issue.

perhaps it´s more than just a couple of fundies. anyway, imo they´re being over sensitive and are trying to force their views down other people´s throats.

Need I repeat that your opinion doesn't change my opinion that it is disrespectful? No, didn't think so.

I know. What you seem to be failing to understand is that YOUR opinion on this matter is pretty much irrelevant for a few reasons:
1. You're not Hindu, so your opinion on whether this is disrespect or not is not worth as much as a Hindu's opinion [assuming the Hindu isn't a Fundie of course]

my religion is pretty much irrelevant since i might want to wear ganesha underwear ot at least want the moral right to wear it.

It's your desire to wear Ganesha underwear which is irrelevent to the question "is it disrespect?".

2. You're one person; I'd put more weight on an opinion that something is disrespectful if a crowd of people say it is versus one man saying it isn't.

if you want to appeal to popularity that´s your problem.

No, that is my advantage. Are you forgetting we're debating an opinion; in order to resolve who's is more "right", we have to consider the reaction of Hindus.

furthermore, do you really think that more people think that it´s disrespectful.

If you're asking me do the number of people make a difference to my own opinion, then yep. Especially since I'm not a Hindu and therefore am basically immune from any and all acts of "Hindu disrespect".

i honestly neither know nor care, but i´m sure that i´m not the only one who supports my point.

Some people reckon turning up to funerals in shorts and thongs isn't disrespect either.

Do you realise you're asking me to prove respect is subjective?

no. i was asking you to prove that respect is not subjective because your posts appeared to be claiming so:

The point is it was disrespectful of Harrods...

Oh plu-heze! Don't tell me I have to prepend the string "in my opinion" everytime I make a sentance with the word "disrespect"!

In my opinion, it isn't moral. I'm not religious, however I respect peoples rights to practice religion, and IMHO it is disrespectful to put the creator of the Universe and their own life onto underwear. There is a line, and underwear crosses it.

so? what about ganesha pillars? are they degrading because they´re compelled to carry the weight of buildings for ordinary humans? shouldn´t it be the other way round, that the worthless humans carry the weight of the gods houses?

or is a ganesha pillar something that honors ganesha by thankfully depicting him as the supporter of an object absolutely necessary for everybody´s daily life.

there are certainly always two different angles from which you can see things. that´s why i think that stuff like this can be disrespectful but isn´t necessarily disrespectful/amoral/whatever.

Right. But we can still judge whos opinion is more right, which is what we're basically doing here.

Please don't make me laugh.

why would you?

Because marketing does consider morality as marketing must appeal to the market; the moral market [you, me and everyone]. So the ads we get hit by have to meet a base level of morality too, or we'd get turned off.

the basic questions of this debate are:

do you think that diffferent people can have different way of showing respect/disrespect?

is it relevant that different people have different ways of showing respect/disrespect, or should everybody adopt the ways of a certain group?

Where did you find these questions? This is the question: "was it disrespectful"?

[Darth Wong]

Of course it was disrespectful. The real question is: "why is it necessary for people to respect the absurd and irrational beliefs of others?"

In the case of a mainstream department store, the reason is simple business expediency. In the case of people living in Muslim nations, it's fear of death. Without those kinds of motives, there's really no reason.

People who have absurd beliefs generally think that others are obligated to "respect" them for some reason, but they can never really explain why, so they tend to resort to the coercion of the mob.

[salm]

Where did you find these questions? This is the question: "was it disrespectful"?

if one thinks that people don´t have different ways of showing disrespect/respect then obviously i would be wrong since these hindus think it´s disrespecting and so would everyone else.

if one thinks that people do have different ways of showing respect this leads us to question number 2.

if one thinks it´s good that different people have different ways of showing disrespect/respect then you and these hindus are wrong because you can´t determin whether the harrods customers are going to use the undies to disrespect ganesha.

if one thinks it´s bad that different people have different ways of showing disrespect then you and the hindus are right because in this case all people need to adopt one oppinion.

what this oppinion is would then be the next question. are the hindus right because they´re ones clostest related to ganesha? is the majority right because they´re the majority? harrods because it´s the owner? etcetc.

[salm]

you´ve probably noticed by now but i´ll but in into a general sentance:

i think that actions themselves can´t be disrespecting. only the intent behind an action counts.