Vegetarian Discussion: Taco Bell Pulls Super Bowl Ad Making Fun Of Veggie Eaters After Veggie Eaters Complain

Taco Bell Pulls Super Bowl Ad Making Fun Of Veggie Eaters After Veggie Eaters Complain
Posts: 14

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

And/or Www.mantra.com/jai Dr. Jai Maharaj
2013-01-31 14:09:52 EST
Taco Bell Pulls Super Bowl Ad Making Fun of Veggie Eaters
After Veggie Eaters Complain

January 30, 2013

United States, January 2013 (gawker.com): A Taco Bell ad
chastising party-poopers who bring veggie platters to
Game Day has been pulled following a Twitter campaign
launched by the Center for Science in the Public
Interest.

Continues at:

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/blogs-news/hindu-press-international/taco-bell-pulls-super-bowl-ad-making-fun-of-veggie-eaters-after-veggie-eaters-complain/12678.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

Derek
2013-01-31 14:41:21 EST
[
trimmed]

On 31/01/2013 19:09, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> Taco Bell Pulls Super Bowl Ad Making Fun of Veggie Eaters
> After Veggie Eaters Complain
>
> January 30, 2013
>
> United States, January 2013 (gawker.com): A Taco Bell ad
> chastising party-poopers who bring veggie platters to
> Game Day has been pulled following a Twitter campaign
> launched by the Center for Science in the Public
> Interest.
>
> Continues at:
>
> http://www.hinduismtoday.com/blogs-news/hindu-press-international/taco-bell-pulls-super-bowl-ad-making-fun-of-veggie-eaters-after-veggie-eaters-complain/12678.html

"punting on fourth and one" Is that, "playing it safe" or something? I
can't see why anyone would think a comment like that would "discourage
people from eating vegetables." I certainly do hope the minority of
vegetarians incapable of taking a bit of a joke don't ruin things for
the majority who can.


George Plimpton
2013-01-31 16:16:38 EST
On 1/31/2013 11:41 AM, Derek wrote:
> [
> trimmed]
>
> On 31/01/2013 19:09, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>> Taco Bell Pulls Super Bowl Ad Making Fun of Veggie Eaters
>> After Veggie Eaters Complain
>>
>> January 30, 2013
>>
>> United States, January 2013 (gawker.com): A Taco Bell ad
>> chastising party-poopers who bring veggie platters to
>> Game Day has been pulled following a Twitter campaign
>> launched by the Center for Science in the Public
>> Interest.
>>
>> Continues at:
>>
>> http://www.hinduismtoday.com/blogs-news/hindu-press-international/taco-bell-pulls-super-bowl-ad-making-fun-of-veggie-eaters-after-veggie-eaters-complain/12678.html
>>
>
> "punting on fourth and one" Is that, "playing it safe" or something?

In American football, when a team takes possession of the ball, they
have four downs (plays) to try to advance 10 yards. If they succeed in
advancing the ball 10 yards, they get a new set of downs (unless they
advance past the other team's goal line, resulting in scoring a
touchdown worth six points.) On the fourth attempt to advance the
initial 10 yards, if they fail to advance beyond the point 10 yards from
where they first took possession, the lose the ball on downs and the
other team takes possession. Typically, if the team possessing the ball
is between their own goal line and the midfield line (50 yard line),
they'll punt the ball to the other team. A punt is a kick: the ball is
snapped from the line of scrimmage to the punter standing about 15 yards
behind the line, and he kicks the ball in the air; someone on the
defensive team usually tries to catch the ball and run with it.
However, if the team with the ball is in the other team's half of the
field (pitch), and if there is but a short distance left to complete a
10 yard advance and obtain another set of downs, then the team with the
ball may elect to try to gain the necessary advance. There is a variety
of game situations in which a team might try to do this rather than
punting the ball or perhaps trying to kick a field goal.

The metaphor "punting on fourth and one" means, indeed, to play it safe,
or conservatively. It's also taken as meaning lacking confidence in
one's ability to advance, even though not much advance is required -
that is, a metaphor for gutlessness. The "one", of course, refers to
one yard left to go. Even worse would be "punting on fourth and inches."


> I can't see why anyone would think a comment like that would "discourage
> people from eating vegetables."

By itself, it wouldn't. But as you might imagine, dietary choice has
been heavily politicized here. The "Center for Science in the Public
Interest" is not a true science advisory group at all. It's a left-wing
advocacy group with a long and sordid history of peddling pseudoscience
in order to try to dictate to people what they "ought" to eat. Yes,
they very much advocate vegetarianism, and if they want to advocate it
on ethical principles, no one would really object, but when they try to
dress it up in the language of fake science, it becomes objectionable.

Jay Stevens, aka "'Dr.' Jai Maharaj", aka the jyotishithead, is not a
doctor, not a Hindoo, and is in fact a Caucasian lying shitbag from
Hawaii who does real vegetarians a disservice by making them look like
intolerant meddlers. He's a fraudster - he claims to be an astrologer,
and he tells people their "fortunes" and futures for money, so he is
committing outright fraud.


> I certainly do hope the minority of
> vegetarians incapable of taking a bit of a joke don't ruin things for
> the majority who can.

Fuckwits like Jay Stevens and CSPI are exactly the reason why "vegans"
are widely considered to be completely humorless.


Derek
2013-01-31 18:02:40 EST
On 31/01/2013 21:16, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 1/31/2013 11:41 AM, Derek wrote:
>> [
>> trimmed]
>>
>> On 31/01/2013 19:09, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>> Taco Bell Pulls Super Bowl Ad Making Fun of Veggie Eaters
>>> After Veggie Eaters Complain
>>>
>>> January 30, 2013
>>>
>>> United States, January 2013 (gawker.com): A Taco Bell ad
>>> chastising party-poopers who bring veggie platters to
>>> Game Day has been pulled following a Twitter campaign
>>> launched by the Center for Science in the Public
>>> Interest.
>>>
>>> Continues at:
>>>
>>> http://www.hinduismtoday.com/blogs-news/hindu-press-international/taco-bell-pulls-super-bowl-ad-making-fun-of-veggie-eaters-after-veggie-eaters-complain/12678.html
>>>
>>
>> "punting on fourth and one" Is that, "playing it safe" or something?
>
> In American football, when a team takes possession of the ball, they
> have four downs (plays) to try to advance 10 yards. If they succeed in
> advancing the ball 10 yards, they get a new set of downs (unless they
> advance past the other team's goal line, resulting in scoring a
> touchdown worth six points.) On the fourth attempt to advance the
> initial 10 yards, if they fail to advance beyond the point 10 yards from
> where they first took possession, the lose the ball on downs and the
> other team takes possession. Typically, if the team possessing the ball
> is between their own goal line and the midfield line (50 yard line),
> they'll punt the ball to the other team. A punt is a kick: the ball is
> snapped from the line of scrimmage to the punter standing about 15 yards
> behind the line, and he kicks the ball in the air; someone on the
> defensive team usually tries to catch the ball and run with it.
> However, if the team with the ball is in the other team's half of the
> field (pitch), and if there is but a short distance left to complete a
> 10 yard advance and obtain another set of downs, then the team with the
> ball may elect to try to gain the necessary advance. There is a variety
> of game situations in which a team might try to do this rather than
> punting the ball or perhaps trying to kick a field goal.

I'm going to start following it now I know some of the rules and what
the actual objective of the game is.

> The metaphor "punting on fourth and one" means, indeed, to play it safe,

It fit's so well I knew it had to be something along the lines, 'playing
it safe.' I like it.

> or conservatively. It's also taken as meaning lacking confidence in
> one's ability to advance, even though not much advance is required -
> that is, a metaphor for gutlessness. The "one", of course, refers to
> one yard left to go. Even worse would be "punting on fourth and inches."

Got it. And thanks for using that knack you've got in explaining thing
in terms a Brit would understand, by the way.

>> I can't see why anyone would think a comment like that would "discourage
>> people from eating vegetables."
>
> By itself, it wouldn't. But as you might imagine, dietary choice has
> been heavily politicized here. The "Center for Science in the Public
> Interest" is not a true science advisory group at all. It's a left-wing
> advocacy group with a long and sordid history of peddling pseudoscience
> in order to try to dictate to people what they "ought" to eat. Yes,
> they very much advocate vegetarianism, and if they want to advocate it
> on ethical principles, no one would really object, but when they try to
> dress it up in the language of fake science, it becomes objectionable.

Whatever did happen to the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, I often wonder. I
found some of what she wrote quite plausible for a while, but when she
went right off the rails I began to doubt her and then my own judgement
about people I found plausible, generally. I learned a lot from that
experience.

> Jay Stevens, aka "'Dr.' Jai Maharaj", aka the jyotishithead, is not a
> doctor, not a Hindoo, and is in fact a Caucasian lying shitbag from
> Hawaii who does real vegetarians a disservice by making them look like
> intolerant meddlers.

He seems to be trying to put vegetarians in the same group as those who
should never be criticised or offended. That in itself is going to cause
more. It's the wrong tactic.

> He's a fraudster - he claims to be an astrologer,
> and he tells people their "fortunes" and futures for money, so he is
> committing outright fraud.

Preying on the most vulnerable in need has to be one of the most
despicable crimes because the victims often ask for more of the same in
the hope that what was promised will one day be due. The way they go
about their business is sinister and heartless.

>> I certainly do hope the minority of
>> vegetarians incapable of taking a bit of a joke don't ruin things for
>> the majority who can.
>
> Fuckwits like Jay Stevens and CSPI are exactly the reason why "vegans"
> are widely considered to be completely humorless.

There's at least one more vegetarian I can think of who does a pretty
good job in keeping that character group alive. He's Australian, you
know. From a country that probably has one of the richest reserves of
humour in the world.


George Plimpton
2013-01-31 18:22:21 EST
On 1/31/2013 3:02 PM, Derek wrote:
> On 31/01/2013 21:16, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 1/31/2013 11:41 AM, Derek wrote:
>>> [
>>> trimmed]
>>>
>>> On 31/01/2013 19:09, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>>> Taco Bell Pulls Super Bowl Ad Making Fun of Veggie Eaters
>>>> After Veggie Eaters Complain
>>>>
>>>> January 30, 2013
>>>>
>>>> United States, January 2013 (gawker.com): A Taco Bell ad
>>>> chastising party-poopers who bring veggie platters to
>>>> Game Day has been pulled following a Twitter campaign
>>>> launched by the Center for Science in the Public
>>>> Interest.
>>>>
>>>> Continues at:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.hinduismtoday.com/blogs-news/hindu-press-international/taco-bell-pulls-super-bowl-ad-making-fun-of-veggie-eaters-after-veggie-eaters-complain/12678.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> "punting on fourth and one" Is that, "playing it safe" or something?
>>
>> In American football, when a team takes possession of the ball, they
>> have four downs (plays) to try to advance 10 yards. If they succeed in
>> advancing the ball 10 yards, they get a new set of downs (unless they
>> advance past the other team's goal line, resulting in scoring a
>> touchdown worth six points.) On the fourth attempt to advance the
>> initial 10 yards, if they fail to advance beyond the point 10 yards from
>> where they first took possession, the lose the ball on downs and the
>> other team takes possession. Typically, if the team possessing the ball
>> is between their own goal line and the midfield line (50 yard line),
>> they'll punt the ball to the other team. A punt is a kick: the ball is
>> snapped from the line of scrimmage to the punter standing about 15 yards
>> behind the line, and he kicks the ball in the air; someone on the
>> defensive team usually tries to catch the ball and run with it.
>> However, if the team with the ball is in the other team's half of the
>> field (pitch), and if there is but a short distance left to complete a
>> 10 yard advance and obtain another set of downs, then the team with the
>> ball may elect to try to gain the necessary advance. There is a variety
>> of game situations in which a team might try to do this rather than
>> punting the ball or perhaps trying to kick a field goal.
>
> I'm going to start following it now I know some of the rules and what
> the actual objective of the game is.
>
>> The metaphor "punting on fourth and one" means, indeed, to play it safe,
>
> It fit's so well I knew it had to be something along the lines, 'playing
> it safe.' I like it.
>
>> or conservatively. It's also taken as meaning lacking confidence in
>> one's ability to advance, even though not much advance is required -
>> that is, a metaphor for gutlessness. The "one", of course, refers to
>> one yard left to go. Even worse would be "punting on fourth and inches."
>
> Got it. And thanks for using that knack you've got in explaining thing
> in terms a Brit would understand, by the way.

Here's a page that gives a comparison between American football and
rugby league:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_American_football_and_rugby_league


>>> I can't see why anyone would think a comment like that would "discourage
>>> people from eating vegetables."
>>
>> By itself, it wouldn't. But as you might imagine, dietary choice has
>> been heavily politicized here. The "Center for Science in the Public
>> Interest" is not a true science advisory group at all. It's a left-wing
>> advocacy group with a long and sordid history of peddling pseudoscience
>> in order to try to dictate to people what they "ought" to eat. Yes,
>> they very much advocate vegetarianism, and if they want to advocate it
>> on ethical principles, no one would really object, but when they try to
>> dress it up in the language of fake science, it becomes objectionable.
>
> Whatever did happen to the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, I often wonder. I
> found some of what she wrote quite plausible for a while, but when she
> went right off the rails I began to doubt her and then my own judgement
> about people I found plausible, generally. I learned a lot from that
> experience.

She seemed to me to have a good grasp of facts at times, but on other
occasions she seemed to be a thorough lunatic. She believed in all
manner of crackpot "spirituality", and if there was even a hint of that
in one of her posts, I always assumed the entire post was queered.

I also wonder what became of 'Scented Nectar' or Skanky/Skunky. She was
another goof. I think her biggest problem was she abused marijuana
something terrible. It's one thing to enjoy a grass high from time to
time, but she seemed to be a heavy-duty pothead.


>> Jay Stevens, aka "'Dr.' Jai Maharaj", aka the jyotishithead, is not a
>> doctor, not a Hindoo, and is in fact a Caucasian lying shitbag from
>> Hawaii who does real vegetarians a disservice by making them look like
>> intolerant meddlers.
>
> He seems to be trying to put vegetarians in the same group as those who
> should never be criticised or offended. That in itself is going to cause
> more. It's the wrong tactic.
>
>> He's a fraudster - he claims to be an astrologer,
>> and he tells people their "fortunes" and futures for money, so he is
>> committing outright fraud.
>
> Preying on the most vulnerable in need has to be one of the most
> despicable crimes because the victims often ask for more of the same in
> the hope that what was promised will one day be due. The way they go
> about their business is sinister and heartless.
>
>>> I certainly do hope the minority of
>>> vegetarians incapable of taking a bit of a joke don't ruin things for
>>> the majority who can.
>>
>> Fuckwits like Jay Stevens and CSPI are exactly the reason why "vegans"
>> are widely considered to be completely humorless.
>
> There's at least one more vegetarian I can think of who does a pretty
> good job in keeping that character group alive. He's Australian, you
> know. From a country that probably has one of the richest reserves of
> humour in the world.

Oh, yeah - *that* guy!


D*@.
2013-02-04 19:10:46 EST
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:09:52 GMT, usenet@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:

>Taco Bell Pulls Super Bowl Ad Making Fun of Veggie Eaters
>After Veggie Eaters Complain
>
>January 30, 2013
>
>United States, January 2013 (gawker.com): A Taco Bell ad
>chastising party-poopers who bring veggie platters to
>Game Day has been pulled following a Twitter campaign
>launched by the Center for Science in the Public
>Interest.

How exactly were they chastising veg*ns and how is it in the public interest
to stop them from doing so?

D*@.
2013-02-04 19:11:26 EST
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:02:40 +0000, Derek <dereknash@groupmail.com> wrote:

>There's at least one more vegetarian I can think of who does a pretty
>good job in keeping that character group alive. He's Australian, you
>know. From a country that probably has one of the richest reserves of
>humour in the world.

There's an Australian clown here who claims to have a PhD in math yet can't
comprehend a simple aspect of life we discussed in class in grade school. In the
grade school I went to, he probably would have been in special ed:

"I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
"lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert

unless he was lying when he wrote that. An indication that he was is that he
claimed to have been able to comprehend the distinction previous to his claim
that he can not:

"I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
in their place." - Rupert

Do you think it's likely that he could comprehend at one point, and then later
he unlearned? If so, how do you think he unlearned? If not, why do you think he
started lying about it?

George Plimpton
2013-02-04 21:03:40 EST
On 2/4/2013 4:11 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:02:40 +0000, Derek <dereknash@groupmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There's at least one more vegetarian I can think of who does a pretty
>> good job in keeping that character group alive. He's Australian, you
>> know. From a country that probably has one of the richest reserves of
>> humour in the world.
>
> There's an Australian clown here who claims to have a PhD in math yet can't
> comprehend a simple aspect of life we discussed in class in grade school.

No, you did not ever discuss in grade school how "getting to experience
life" is a benefit.


D*@.
2013-02-06 14:31:15 EST
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:03:40 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:11:26 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:02:40 +0000, Derek <dereknash@groupmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>There's at least one more vegetarian I can think of who does a pretty
>>>good job in keeping that character group alive. He's Australian, you
>>>know. From a country that probably has one of the richest reserves of
>>>humour in the world.
>>
>> There's an Australian clown here who claims to have a PhD in math yet can't
>>comprehend a simple aspect of life we discussed in class in grade school. In the
>>grade school I went to, he probably would have been in special ed:
>>
>>"I don't believe the distinction between "lives of positive value" and
>>"lives of negative value" means anything." - Rupert
>>
>>unless he was lying when he wrote that. An indication that he was is that he
>>claimed to have been able to comprehend the distinction previous to his claim
>>that he can not:
>>
>>"I said to David Harrison that there exist some farmed animals such
>>that it would be a better outcome for them to live the life they do
>>rather than for them not to live at all and for no animals to live
>>in their place." - Rupert
>>
>>Do you think it's likely that he could comprehend at one point, and then later
>>he unlearned? If so, how do you think he unlearned? If not, why do you think he
>>started lying about it?
>
>No,

There's more to it than that Goob. Try again: Do you think it's likely that
Rupert could comprehend at one point, and then later he unlearned? If so, how do
you think he unlearned? If not, why do you think he started lying about it?

>you did not ever discuss in grade school how "getting to experience
>life" is a benefit.

Goober we discussed slavery in the US and the fact that some slaves were
content with their lives meaning they had positive value to them and that other
slaves had lives which they considered to be good. We discussed the fact that
the value could and did change for them too Goo. We discussed that when they
became free they often couldn't find jobs so many agreed to stay on as slaves
until things changed over the years... We discussed more than that too Goo, like
that some people would remain slaves even when life was of negative value to
them pesonally, in the hopes that things would be better for their children. But
such details are necessarily beyond the mental ability of people who don't see
how life could ever be a benefit ...LOL... to anything. It's also beyond the
ability of someone who doesn't think the distinction between lives of positive
and negative value means anything, to appreciate how the difference between
lives of positive and negative value means anything, Goo. We were doing it by
the sixth grade Goober, but Dr. Rupert claims that he can't do it at all. He
claimed that he could in the past Goo, but has either unlearned or is still able
to do it while lying that he can't. Either way seems very stupid from my pov,
Goo.

George Plimpton
2013-02-06 15:00:05 EST
On 2/6/2013 11:31 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid lying
convicted felon for dog fighting, lied:

> On 2/4/2013 6:03 PM, George Plimpton wrote:> On 2/4/2013 4:11 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:02:40 +0000, Derek <dereknash@groupmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's at least one more vegetarian I can think of who does a pretty
>>>> good job in keeping that character group alive. He's Australian, you
>>>> know. From a country that probably has one of the richest reserves of
>>>> humour in the world.
>>>
>>> There's an Australian clown here who claims to have a PhD in math
>>> yet can't
>>> comprehend a simple aspect of life we discussed in class in grade school.
>>
>> No, you did not ever discuss in grade school how "getting to experience
>> life" is a benefit.
>
> There's more to it than that

There's nothing more to it than that, *Goo*. You did *NOT* ever talk
about slaves "benefiting" from "getting to experience life.


>
> we discussed slavery in the US

Every elementary school child in the US "discusses" that, *Goo*. But
*NONE* ever talk about the philosophical implication of whether or not
they "benefited" by "getting to experience life." You're simply lying
about that, *Goo*.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron