digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at motherjones.com

Starbucks' Slutty Mermaid Making Waves

motherjones.com — Starbucks re-introduced its 1971 brown-and-white logo featuring a two-tailed mermaid. Okay, technically it's a siren, but regardless, the image of a female figure brazenly spreading its tails has made a few Christians vow to boycott the company.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • unwillingdgr, on 05/09/2008, -31/+4Mmm, Starbucks .... so delicious, so slutty. BTW, can I trade in my Slutbucks for silver sickles or bronze knuts?
  • StingingNettle, on 05/09/2008, -14/+240Wow, I guess Christians are easily tempted. Dangle some old timey drawings of breasts around and people might start ***** in the streets.
    • johnomaz, on 05/09/2008, -11/+45Just make sure you don't generalize all chritians like that. I am a Christian, and this story makes me sad. There are people out there that make us all look bad by acking like that.
      • Yage2006, on 05/09/2008, -3/+56Why don't Christians like you try to take back your religion because the only Christians we hear about are the ones that are ***** crazy.
        • evilesttoast, on 05/09/2008, -0/+26Would you want to hear about normal, day-to-day Christians or Christians who say "BURN IN HELL STARBUCKS!"?
        • usrlocalbin, on 05/09/2008, -8/+26None of them actually.
        • Mononuclear, on 05/09/2008, -3/+14People tend to focus on the negative and 1 crazy person stands out more than 100 sane ones. If you go to a bad restaurant and have a really bad experience you tell 20 friends. If you go to a good restaurant and have a great experience you tell 2 friends. That is how society is. You only hear about the insane people because normal people who agree with you and me aren't news.
        • dirigibleduck, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7Because most Christians are just normal people, and normal people aren't really newsworthy.
          • bluezinc, on 05/09/2008, -1/+6Are you saying you hate Jesus? GET OUT OF AMUURICA!!
        • tech42er, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Take it back? How so? If people want to exercise their freedom of speech, there's nothing that can be done.
      • StingingNettle, on 05/09/2008, -2/+11I grew up going to a very fundamentalist school K through 12. Its the fundamentalists that I have a problem with. Extremely hypocritical people.
        • PolarBearCa, on 05/09/2008, -2/+4Doesn't that apply to the fundamentalists of ANY religion?
      • roosterjm2k2, on 05/09/2008, -4/+8Johnomaz, frankly, when the "good ones" sit back and shut up and do nothing, then yeah, they get to represent you.


      • Forbes245, on 05/09/2008, -5/+4This is a publicity stunt. Last week Starbucks announced HUGE losses and HUGE declines in customers. This is just one stupid thing they are trying to do to stir up comtroversy and renew interest in their stupid company.
        No need to get upset over this, it's just a stunt.
      • Fordi, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4Then speak out against the nutbags on something with a little more exposure than a Digg comment. If all the world sees of your group is the nutbags, all the world will see your group as nutbags. Give them something else.

        Otherwise, the nutbags represent you.
    • usrlocalbin, on 05/09/2008, -8/+21Kinda off topic.....but your comment made me think about this..
      I wonder if Christian groups would also boycott a pharmaceutical company who created a cure for AIDS.....
      Because in their minds, only 'bad' people get AIDS...
      Hmm..
      Makes you wonder..
      • dood, on 05/09/2008, -0/+18IMO, you can look at the reaction to the HPV vaccine for a preview of things to come.
      • xen0blue, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2thats only partially true
      • Kzoo, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Of course, you have to specify -which- Christian groups. Probably the vocal ones, sure. The quiet ones actually helping people out in all sorts of ways would be happy for such a thing, since they know that innocent people can have problems that "bad" people have through no fault of their own. I just wish we could hear about them once in a while.
    • metric7, on 05/09/2008, -2/+9***** em
    • hermslice, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5who ***** in the streets and why didnt i get an invite?
      • kashk5, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Calm down, it's probably just a bunch of priests and little boys
    • jaredcat, on 05/09/2008, -6/+2Sure its a completely crazy response to a cartoon of a fish-woman; but look at it in perspective. Christian fundamentalists see an offensive cartoon and organize a boycott. Muslim fundamentalists see an offensive cartoon and have riots, send death threats, and kill people. I'll take the Christian nuts any day.
    • Unlgued, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Hell, I'm easily tempted.
    • Aniphx, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Actually, I think the issue isn't the nudity, but the fact that it's a Christian belief that mermaids are demonic because they are distortions of the human form. However, I don't think they are doing the right thing by getting in an uproar. Right now they're just acting like idiots. And there's no reason to shove a point down anyone's throat.
    • Yeshuah, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Really though let's not assume all Christians are like this. If we're gonna do that, let's all just agree that blondes are stupid, Mexicans are lazy, and every Muslim is hiding a bomb.
      • NickPet, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Thank-you. Someone finally making a decent point.
  • lebreezy, on 05/09/2008, -36/+21***** Christians, they would boycott God if they had a good enough reason.
    • Wiwoz, on 05/09/2008, -8/+22Charming. I don't care for Christian dogma either, but this comment was spoiled by the unnecessary spleen for Christians in general rather than just those who are reactionary. Congratulations, you've reinforced a stereotype yourself.
      • nblsavage, on 05/09/2008, -10/+7Well, it's the ***** christians that get all the press so that's the image people get.
        • Mononuclear, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2That is the image people who don't use their brain get. Anyone with a any degree of common sense knows that just because a subset of a group of people act a certain way, not everyone or even the majority of that group are the same. You shouldn't fall for stereotypes and generalizations if you actually think about something instead of jumping on the hate wagon.
          • Fordi, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2"Anyone with a any degree of common sense"
            You're talking about America here. 50% of everyone exposed to a nutbag will think that nutbag is representative of whichever class he or she most identifies with.
        • tech42er, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Honestly, this is true of actual minority groups, but Christians aren't a minority group by any stretch and the idea that people pick up al their notions of Christianity and Christians from the media is laughable. That may be true of, say, Confucians, but it's sure as hell not true for Christians.
    • FTLJohnson, on 05/09/2008, -1/+9Wow, sucks for Starbucks; Christians boycotting them for mythical aquatic porn, Atheists boycotting them for the stupid religious tracts they were putting on their cups, and Hippies boycotting them for all the bad business practices... Somehow, I bet they can just raise the price from $4 a cup to $6 a cup to survive, and the dummies that pay it will never notice.
    • BadseedJR, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Only if he was drawn with breasts.
  • CaptinCrunch, on 05/09/2008, -14/+6lol... wouldn't want to corrupt the minds of our young people. I heard she's doing a spread in playboy next month.
    • Waterrat, on 05/09/2008, -2/+9 How anyone can see anything sexual out of that drawing is beyond me. Are those people ALWAYS thinking about sex?
      • Planets, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Those people?

        Hold on a second, do you skip over 90% of Digg comments or something?
  • Baronvontito1, on 05/09/2008, -24/+143Ah, religion, stunting human progress since it's inception.
    • Shawn4168, on 05/09/2008, -28/+9...because society has evolved so much due to a logo of some topless chick?
      • Enasni1212, on 05/09/2008, -3/+28It's more about the waste of resources spent complaining about it.
      • loudog40, on 05/09/2008, -1/+11Conciousness, technology, medicine, science, social organization, civil liberties, space travel, art, literature.... you have got to be kidding me. How is it even possible not to marvel at what mankind has become?

        "These are the things hydrogen atoms do when given 13.7 billion years." -Brian Cox
        • Spire3660, on 05/09/2008, -4/+9And religion helped stunt the growth of most of that list.
        • Baronvontito1, on 05/09/2008, -1/+15Sure, we've come a long way, but imagine how much farther we could be right now if religion hadn't stopped advancements considered to be "against the will of God".

          Stem Cells, for example. A treatment, and possibly a cure, for Parkinson's, Cerebral Palsy, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke, and even paralysis (among other things). The only reason that it's not being used in hospitals throughout America is because our closed minded President said it was immoral, because the church told him it was. Now tell me that's not impeding advancement.
          • Fordi, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4You forgot the dark ages. Oh, god, I hope the fundies don't get in power again.
          • alpha88, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5You sir, are so correct, it's not funny.
          • troye, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Yes, I agree also. There are religious people on this here Digg, and they bury comments like yours.
          • NotOptium, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2What about the plasmids?
    • theholyraptor, on 05/09/2008, -3/+4well said Sir Baronvontito1.
    • Galume, on 05/09/2008, -7/+2Uh..right. Because the atheistic/communistic regimes have done soooo much for humanity. Thanks Stalin! Thanks Chairman Mao! You could've helped, but you've been so much more...
      • gooberguy, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4why the hell did you relate atheists with communists?

        logic much?
        • Risingashes, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3Can't ask too much from people who believe in magical sky people and magical floating reward sky castles.
        • solid12345, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Who needs magic sky people to believe in when you have giant 200 foot banners of god-men on earth like Lenin.
    • sh4rkb1t3, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5Perhaps in the beginning religion was useful to mankind, since there must be an evolutionary reason as to why all human cultures worship inanimate objects. But religion in this day and age seems to have become more of a hinderance than a help.
      • Baronvontito1, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Agreed. Its become more of a tool now, for the weak to control the strong.
    • AvidPreatorian, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2its*
    • solid12345, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Well to be fair the greatest works of art & architecture in history have been funded by the church, money buys good art.
  • wild, on 05/09/2008, -9/+82Wait wait wait. Its ok to have statues and paintings of the virgin Mary's naked breasts, but put a mermaid on a cup and its slutty?

    People have way too much time on their hands.
    • Rocketman1882, on 05/09/2008, -3/+17Or as the christians fear, too much stuff in their hands.
    • not28, on 05/09/2008, -1/+29I don't think I've ever seen a painting or statue of a naked Virgin Mary. I need proof.
      • hermslice, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3indeed pics or it didnt happen (meet you in hell not28?)
    • corruptivesum, on 05/09/2008, -7/+5wasn't the virgin mary around 16 when she gave birth? I assume these paintings are of around that time, so wouldn't that constitute child pornography?
      • Skeith3294, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0artwork is (generally) not considered pornography unless it is overtly sexual in nature. I mean go watch Disney's Hercules when he knocks the arms of Venus De Milo.
    • jaredcat, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2eh I think most of the virgin mary statues before the 16th century were that way. Madonna and child, breast feeding. The jesus is naked too sometimes.

      Anyway they just put fig leafs over the naughty bits now.
  • CrudeDarkness, on 05/09/2008, -4/+176two fins one cup
  • rrrrob, on 05/09/2008, -4/+50I just don't understand why nudity is so depraved for Christians. Presumably, in heaven everyone would be naked as God never wanted Adam or Eve to wear clothes, so why would clothes be mandatory or even expected? If it's good enough for heaven it's good enough for regular life.
    • Advocate777, on 05/09/2008, -19/+8There's a big difference, rrrrob. In Heaven, Christianity teaches we will be made perfect through Christ. So whether or not we are clothed in heaven would not make a difference as there would be no temptation. In contrast, here on Earth humanity is, obviously, not perfect. Seeing nudity would obviously cause temptation. If people lived their lives as if they were in Heaven I'd think we'd be living in a very different world.
      • rrrrob, on 05/09/2008, -2/+28What's wrong with the act of being tempted?
        • Advocate777, on 05/09/2008, -4/+8One of the 10 commandments is 'No lusting after your neighbor's house—or wife or servant or maid or ox or donkey. Don't set your heart on anything that is your neighbor's.' (Exodus 20:17 The Message). Lusting after what is not yours is considered a sin. Sorry if I sound 'preachy', just answering a question.
          • Jok3r, on 05/09/2008, -0/+17Im lusting my neighbor's donkey :/
          • BadseedJR, on 05/09/2008, -0/+10I'm not lusting for a 2 finned mermaid whore, even if I see it on a cup of coffee.
          • roosterjm2k2, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4"Kelly can be a guy's name too....yeeahh!"
        • rrrrob, on 05/09/2008, -0/+8Lust is not temptation. Temptation is product of lust.
          • Advocate777, on 05/09/2008, -3/+2However, in my opinion, the two are intertwined. You cannot lust after something if you are not tempted to want it, and vice versa. As to your original question which I neglected to properly answer though, there is nothing wrong with the act of being tempted. If there was I'd think we'd all be in trouble. What most people fear, though, is how they will react to it.
          • theholyraptor, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1In response to Advocate777 (rrrob put it perfectly above); by your logic we lust after everything because the temptation is there. By the very fact that things, possessions, people, and fun activities exist, they are a temptation whether the thought ever crosses your mind. I always have the option to steal possessions or rape someone or commit an act that is illegal but enjoyable. The thought may not even cross my mind because I wouldn't choose to do such a thing, but since the option and therefor temptation is there, then I'm automatically lusting after it.
          • ormmarine, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0It is human nature to be tempted. What matters is your response. Will you give in to the temptation and sin, or will you stand strong in Christ?

            There's nothing wrong with being tempted, even Jesus was tempted. The big difference between him and everyone who has, is and will ever live is that he did not give in to temptation.
      • rrrrob, on 05/09/2008, -3/+11The rest of my comment got cut off, here's the rest:
        Nudity, caricaturized or real, is not the cause of temptation. Lust, narcissism, and weakness of mind and body are (to name a few). The one who is tempted is the one responsible for being tempted. The actual temptation is a product of a problem (if you think being tempted is a problem) with that particular person.

        It is the struggle that makes life, otherwise you'd have no temptation and may as well be in Heaven (naked of course).
        • Advocate777, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Well put. I would argue that 'the one who is tempted is the one responsible for being tempted' might not be entirely true however. We live in a world that says you don't fit in unless you do X or have Y. While it is up to us to rise above that and say I am who I am and it doesn't matter what you think of me, many people never get to that stage in life.
      • Yage2006, on 05/09/2008, -2/+14Heaven sure sounds like a boring place
        • Fratz, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2All the best musicians will be in hell, anyway.
        • ormmarine, on 05/09/2008, -3/+0I think your concept of Heaven and Hell is ill-informed.
          Heaven is what creation would have been like before Sin, before everything was broken. The bible describes it as a huge banquet, with choice meats and drinks (even alcohol). We'll eat but we won't be gluttons, we'll drink but not be drunkards. It's a huge party.
          Hell is the opposite...wailing, crying, gnashing of teeth, absolute despair and suffering. Don't think for a second that Satan will be ruling over Hell - therefore party...no, Jesus rules over Hell. The New Testament tells that Jesus was given all authority in Heaven (angels, demons and other spirits) and on the Earth (humans, governments, etc).
          Like the others, I don't mean to sound preachy, I just want to clear up some misconceptions about Heaven and Hell
        • kayala, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3So Jesus, your sweet redeemer Jesus, is going to be torturing people for all eternity in a fiery subterranean pit? Sounds like a really great guy.
          • ormmarine, on 05/10/2008, -3/+0You mean really great, holy, righteous and just God.
            He doesn't delight in anyone going to Hell; it grieves him.
            He IS a redeemer, and is merciful. None of us deserves love from Him, and it boggles my mind that He continually pursues us.
            What do we do when someone betrays us? We either fight them and get revenge. Or we distance ourselves from the offender to avoid further hurt.
            God does something so different. He draws near and pursues us.
          • kayala, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Sounds like a jealous boyfriend, actually. If he can't have you, then nobody can!
            I really don't follow where you're going. Jesus is directing the torture of souls in Hell... but he doesn't want to torture them. He wants to be all nice and sunshiney to them. But instead he tortures them mercilessly and endlessly.
            Makes about as much sense as the rest of Christian theology.
      • vermax, on 05/09/2008, -2/+10so in heaven do we finally get to do anal and be drunk all day?

        the answer to the first question is: if Xtians had the brains to even ask intelligent questions like that, then the religion would have disappeared a long time ago. Instead the best they can amange is the head-in-ass bubbly airhead babble like the first comment.
        • dirigibleduck, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Amusingly that's roughly how the Muslim heaven is described. You get to drink and have sex all day, basically doing everything that you were forbidden to do on Earth.
      • alpha88, on 05/09/2008, -1/+6Having no sex isn't perfect. Sex is natural. Christians are weird.
      • swedishfishing, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2wtf no sex in heaven?! bbl guys, sinning...
  • sockpuppets, on 05/09/2008, -10/+4I prefer this one:
    http://fresephotography.com/fpblog/uploaded_images ...
  • Nekura20x6, on 05/09/2008, -5/+26Americans - The world's only puritanical pornographers...
    • Charun, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3It's not all of America. The stupids are in an uproar.
  • Demaskee, on 05/09/2008, -2/+14I wish they would open a slutbucks near me!
  • SuperJay, on 05/09/2008, -5/+8Awesome. Respect for Starbucks +1
  • antiburybrigade, on 05/09/2008, -92/+2BAN ONETIMER BAN ONETIMER BAN ONETIMER BAN ONETIMER BAN ONETIMER
    BAN REED311 BAN REED311 BAN REED311 BAN REED 311 BAN REED311

    LETS THROW THOSE FILTHY FAGGGGOT NIGGHHHER SUBHUMAN OBAMA LOVING KIKES INTO THE DIGG CREMATORIUM

    I WOULD LOVE TO GRAB REED311 AND BEAT HIM SENSELESS WITH A JAR OF GEFILTEFISH. THEN I AM GOING TO TAKE THE CONTENTS OF THE JAR AND SHOVE THEM UP ONETIMER'S ASSS. AFTER STIRRING UP THE GEFILTEFISH AND ONETIMER SHHIT WITH MY BIG *****.....WITH MY FIST ALL WILL BE EXTRACTED AND INSERTED INTO THEIR MOUTHS AS I SACRIFICE THE KOSHER PIGGIES.

    MARRANO JEWS MARRANO JEWS MARRANO JEWS MARRANO JEWS MARRANO JEWS

    HTTP://DIGG.COM/USERS/ONETIMER
    • soot, on 05/09/2008, -0/+25HOLY ***** THIS GUYS HAVING A STROKE AT HIS COMPUTER
    • mattwalton56, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7omg...i hate you.
    • wacomwacoff, on 05/09/2008, -1/+8Enjoy the delicious taste of being banned.
    • moolaismyfriend, on 05/09/2008, -2/+5Wow you were banned quick.
    • ultraelite, on 05/09/2008, -1/+10BUT CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!!!
    • SierraAlpha, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2...
    • malex, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6Try Starbucks Decaf!
    • Fratz, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5Didn't know Tourette's Syndrome worked with keyboards...
    • DreadPirate, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Buried and reported
      • Fordi, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1Buried, blocked an reported. Stop stalking the guy, what the ***** is wrong with you?
        • troye, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Can you please tell me how to ban other digg users again?
          • Fordi, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I assume that a ban results when a sufficient number of 'offensive comment' reports caus enough of your comments to be deleted for a ban to take effect.
        • Fordi, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I was talking about the obvious asshole who started this thread, not you dread pirate. Damned mistargeting clicky finger.
    • dwray82, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0spoken like a true poet.
    • SpriteMV, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2BAN ANTIBURYBRIAGE BAN ANTIBURYBRIGATE BAN ANTIBURYBRIGATE
  • aflaks, on 05/09/2008, -3/+6non-issue. burried.
  • Panda200x, on 05/09/2008, -8/+35I am a christian - I like *****. And I don't act like a strict dumbass creationalist.
  • wacomwacoff, on 05/09/2008, -1/+28I really feel sorry for people who can't be comfortable holding a coffee cup with an old seafaring engraving on it.
  • RetepNamenots, on 05/09/2008, -4/+4Mirror?
    • PhattyPhattMatt, on 05/09/2008, -4/+1you can look into one, buried for comment not related to the article, RTFA
      • RetepNamenots, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2The whole point was that I couldn't?
  • bphicke, on 05/09/2008, -2/+19This reminds me of the movie Idiocracy.
    • markp93, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6i'll take a double latte!
    • masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -0/+11hey now, no need to bash digg.
    • vermax, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2how is it in any way different?
    • taiakpun, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2hahaha. so true. That thought has crossed my mind lately reading all the dugg stories that have people (mainly Americans) whining and complaining about issues that are in no way, shape or form important in the grand scheme of things. Idiocracy was focused strictly in the States - makes me laugh even more seeing that it is such a possibility.
      • masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2People don't only talk about the three most important issues. If you think they do anywhere else, or you think they're suppose to, you may be an idiot.
  • Andrewbot, on 05/09/2008, -2/+26People, please don't believe that all Christians are like this, who have no common-sense or self-control. I can (and hope most other Christians) can tell the difference between something offensive and a cup of coffee.
    • vermax, on 05/09/2008, -12/+7yeah, some of you pick and choose and discard half your fairy tale "holy book", and say the half you like is the bona-fide double-pinky word of Glod. because that makes you so much better. you're still a stupid sheep that refuses to think for yourself. wish the ***** rapture would come already, so the 200,000 your dumdum book says are going could leave, and the rest of you tools would be left staring and sobbing. that'll be funny.
      • dirigibleduck, on 05/09/2008, -0/+7That's ironic, because the Rapture is not actually a biblical concept. It didn't really start gaining steam until the evangelical revivals of the 19th century. Look up Dispensationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism)

        I'm a Christian who also considers himself an educated, science-loving, normal human being. I welcome debate and question almost every concept.
        • troye, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I'm not trying to make fun of you or anything when I ask this. How can you be a devoted Christian while believing in science? Doesn't it conflict with your beliefs internally? Do you know what Agnosticism is. It's basically saying that there was some great force that created everything, but humans do not know about it yet.

          That's what Agnosticism is to me.
        • stanleyford, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2"How can you be a devoted Christian while believing in science?" -- Many of history's greatest scientists were Christians. They didn't seem to have a problem reconciling the two.

          "Doesn't it conflict with your beliefs internally?" -- Why would it?
    • mattwalton56, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I'm glad to see that I'm not the only Christian on here that is logical.
  • codyman, on 05/09/2008, -0/+124 bucks for gas, or 4 bucks for coffee and some tail?
    • troye, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I'll take the gas! It's $3.79 here though.
  • Surefly, on 05/09/2008, -0/+9Dugg for mentioning Schrutebuck in the article.
  • mattwalton56, on 05/09/2008, -2/+51I'm a Christian and think that this is perfectly fine, I happen to think that boobs are one of God's greatest creations. ;p
    • Baronvontito1, on 05/09/2008, -0/+12Can I get an amen!?
    • ComradeGoby, on 05/09/2008, -9/+2Why is a creationist being dugg up?
      • mattwalton56, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6Because this creationist isn't understands that it's OK to joke around about things like this. I honestly don't think god would care...I mean if he didn't want us to talk about boobd why did he make them so attractive? ;P
        • mattwalton56, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2....so, yeah, "isn't" was NOT supposed to go there...
        • Waterrat, on 05/09/2008, -2/+4God didn't make them attractive,cause god does not exist.
          Humans evolved that way with dudes paring with females with the best ones.
        • Kzoo, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Have to rain on the parade, eh Waterrat? Besides, if these early humans were paring each other, I don't think there would've been too many offspring.
    • Vector713, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Amen Brother!
    • Tarotsan, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3We should form a radical pro boob christian group
  • ElBeh, on 05/09/2008, -2/+7*Facepalm*
  • sleepykit, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1The site hosting this article appears to have taken a long vacation (AKA the Digg effect).
  • macweirdo42, on 05/09/2008, -1/+14I'm a little more worried about the fact that these people find fish to be pornographic, myself. I'm not normally one to judge others' sexual deviancies, but that's just a little weird.
    • forsight, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1well put :)
    • Kzoo, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0Even putting that aside, looking at the image I don't see how that can easily be interpreted the way they're interpreting it. I can see it, but that isn't something I would've thought of on my own. Vivid imaginations too, apparently.
  • moolaismyfriend, on 05/09/2008, -9/+2yay like the Christians ever follow through with anything.

    Whatever, let them go drink somewhere else.

    Every time I go to Europe and see how social advance they are than us, I wonder if it may be because they allow topless photo on their teevee's and newspapers and magazines?

    I don't know?
    • forsight, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3Currently, I am living in Europe..and sorry to say but they're not really ahead of the curve. maybe you havn't been here long enough
  • biophetik, on 05/09/2008, -1/+0Not that it matters, but I thought about this a few years ago and made a facebook group about it. I'm all for the slutty mermaid though. Maybe that's why I get the coffee jitters when I'm there.
  • masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -2/+4Because it's not boobs if it's a mermaid. I guess mermaid porn is the loophole.
    • JoeVet, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1Do boobs offend your puritanical senses? Are you afraid you'll get an erection in public? Can you not look at the image as something other than a sex object?
      • masterm1nd, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I think parents should have the option available of keeping ***** like that away from their children eyes.
  • 666dorado, on 05/09/2008, -12/+2*****
  • pidge, on 05/09/2008, -9/+3I think the reason why Christians boycott Starbucks has more to do with the fact that they donate so much money to Planned Parenthood, an organization that is responsible for millions of abortions, promoting abortions and sexual promiscuity amongst teens and much more. Don't want to turn this into a religious debate since I think abortion can be agued against without bringing religion into the conversation. I think too often, religion is used by abortion proponents to discredit those who fight for life which is very sad.
    • Spire3660, on 05/09/2008, -5/+6THe reason being is that the religious seem to have the most credible reason as to why abortion should be considered wrong, the loss of a soul. Any non religious person has no leg to stand on in the abortion issue because there is no immortal soul at stake in your arguments, hence your argument becomes you dictating to others how and when someone procreates, which is entirely none of your business.
    • malex, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5I suppose you also have a problem with pap-smears.
      • Kzoo, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0Uhm. . . I don't think there are too many people who would have a problem with taking a sample of cervical cells outside the uterus. Isn't much different from swabbing inside a cheek for DNA...
        • malex, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Well, then thank your local Planned Parenthood clinic, which provides cervical cancer screening, VD tests, health and contraceptive information for millions of women across the US.

          Planned Parenthood: They're not just for killin' babies!
    • Fordi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6"Planned Parenthood, an organization that is responsible for millions of abortions, promoting abortions and sexual promiscuity amongst teens and much more."

      Oh, but that's very cute spin. Go play with your toys now.
    • Damvan, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5Your entire argument is based around religion, but you don't want to turn it into a religious debate? Are you familiar with the old robot term "Does Not Compute"?
  • PerroLoco, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Is this where the expression “split-tail” comes from?
  • b1narymess1ah, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4People need to find more important things to get ***** off about. Seriously they're just looking for a reason, ANY reason to bitch. Uptight *****.
  • techweenie, on 05/09/2008, -2/+10Guys, figure it out. There are Christians and there are "Christians." It's the latter group that's all about hating and killing.
    • Defuser, on 05/09/2008, -11/+10...too bad there's only one breed of Atheist, and that group is comprised entirely of douchebags.
      • xen0blue, on 05/09/2008, -4/+2LOL
      • kashk5, on 05/09/2008, -2/+4I'll take an atheist douchebag over a whack-job religious fundamentalist any day
      • Kzoo, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3That's. . . interesting. . . it's possible to be something without fitting the stereotype for that group. I know my share of atheists, and Christians, and you get some of one and some of the other in each, just like any other group.
    • Kzoo, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately the "Christians" loudly label themselves as such, and so all Christians are viewed in the same light.
  • GoKings, on 05/09/2008, -0/+21Why don't they boycott the Sisteen Chapel first, which is chock full of nudity?
    • Defuser, on 05/09/2008, -10/+1Maybe they do, *****. Considering that the "they" you're referring to is one guy that some Blogger claims to know.
    • bimtott, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Kinda hard to ban a building, but I see your point.
  • forsight, on 05/09/2008, -13/+9stupid christians.
  • elbergel, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Pike's Place Roast tastes like vagina anyway...
    • gardnerp, on 05/09/2008, -1/+0I think that if it did, the Xtians would be protesting that too.
  • capnawesome, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5site is slow
    Lately, I've seen some changes at the two Starbucks that live less than a block away from the Mother Jones office. Last month, they both started pushing a new blend called "Pike Place Roast" as their regular drip coffee, as part of a campaign to compete with brisk coffee sales at Dunkin' Donuts and McDonald's. As part of the campaign, Starbucks re-introduced its 1971 brown-and-white logo featuring a two-tailed mermaid. Okay, technically it's a siren, but regardless, the image of a female figure brazenly spreading its tails has made a few Christians vow to boycott the company.
    "The Starbucks logo has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute," explains alarmist Mark Dice, of a Christian group called The Resistance. "Need I say more? It's extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks."
    While I'm curious what the value of a Slutbuck is relative to a Schrutebuck, I'm worried that Dice doesn't seem to understand the Starbucks siren is half-fish. She doesn't have legs to spread, much less a vagina to go between them. The fact that Dice doesn't get the difference between a fin and a foot may be an example of what abstinence-only funding does to education, but it's certainly not the first time spunky Christians have boycotted the multinational company.
    Just last summer, a group of Christian ladies boycotted Frappuccinos because there was a homosexual-agenda-pushing Armistead Maupin quote on some of the cups. Others have boycotted the company because of anti-God quotes.
    All I can say is that if Starbucks goes down, it won't be because of a handful of Christian boycotters. And it won't be because a friend of a CATO Institute vice-president couldn't buy a customized "Laissez Faire" gift card, either. As the WSJ tells it, a Starbucks slump will be due to oversaturation and a faltering economy that makes $4 lattes seem like less of a necessity. Whether that's an act of God or not is for you to decide.
    • Defuser, on 05/09/2008, -3/+0Oh, hey, and we're ALL familiar with Mark Dice, of the world-famous "The Resistance". He clearly speaks for all Christians. This couldn't possibly be a case of some asshole at MotherJones attributing undue importance to the random comments of one individual, who (from the looks of it) was making a pinheaded college-kid joke.
    • Aniphx, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1What the? I think they totally missed the point here.
  • KaivenTor, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2There will always be somebody ***** off and boycotting something, somewhere, at any time, and usually for a very stupid reason. But that's their right as a human being. The good news is that we don't actually have to care about any of those twits.
  • cokobware, on 05/09/2008, -2/+11The Christians who are complaining about this are ***** retarded. The bible doesn't say "don't show breasts on a logo"... GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON!
    • PolarBearCa, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1The bible also says be fruitful and multiply. I think Christians are just confused.
    • apextek, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Eve's breast were showing in a lot of Christian pics
  • RedClaw, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Christian, Darwinist, starbucks psychotic - I likes the classic, non-yuppie logo. Why can't we let a business do what it wants to, artistically. That logo has been here in Seattle for 31 years, and NO ONE here's bitched.
    Stupid over-reacting, kneejerk, headline grabbing, militant bigots.
  • dxgg, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Eh. Let them get hot and bothered. I couldn't be arsed about it until it infringes on my own happiness.
  • BadseedJR, on 05/09/2008, -3/+3It's pretty f-ing naive of some Christian group to make the jump form a two finned mermaid drawing to something sensational like "She is spreading her legs like a prostitute." That's like saying the Virgin Mary's open arms pose is an invitation to fondle her vagina. Not everything is bad you crazy reactionaries.
    • PolarBearCa, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Her vagina?

      Damn, all I did was cop a boobie feel... I should have been THINKIN'!
  • Enron, on 05/09/2008, -2/+12This is just about as dumb as the Muslims who got mad at Burger King for making ice cream swirls shaped like Allah.
  • Defuser, on 05/09/2008, -9/+5Welcome to Digg, where one moron can post a link to a ***** article that makes vague, unsubstantiated claims about "a few" Christians from an alleged "group" that nobody ever heard of prior to this article, and 700 other, stupider moron come out to flame Religion. Seriously, atheists are the biggest ***** assholes on the face of the planet. And I base that observation on the actual behavior of the atheists here in this very thread, not on some idiotic article that basically says "Oh, yeah, some guy I know said he's part of a Christian group, and he's boycotting Starbucks."
    • beargrylls, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Way to contradict yourself, idiot. Basing atheists on a Digg comment tread is like judging the whole human race on Youtube comments.
    • diamondjoe, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Why don't you try reading the article, perhaps following the links and reading the numerous comments from Christians, before you mouth off? Crack baby.
    • dirigibleduck, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3I wouldn't generalize about "atheists" if you're going to make the point that you shouldn't generalize "Christians," dude. Many atheists are just normal people who don't want to be bothered, and so are many Christians. Everyone just needs to chill the ***** out.
    • MasterDave, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I have listened to Atheists, and do not care about them. I have listened to "Christians" who go on and on and on telling Me how I HAVE to run My life--they can take a flying leap.
      The "Defuser" post shows the problem with religionists in general--infinite amounts of hate! (Can you say "Muslim"? I knew that you could.)
      Gary Bauer, Bill Bennett, Ken Connor, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard, Bill Owens, Tony Perkins, Sandy Rios, Pat Robertson, Lou Sheldon, Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich are some of the better known UnAmericans pushing their rightwing agenda (as are Islamic Jihad(R)) and calling it "Christianity". All the pseudo-Christians would literally melt if they happened to look upon Christ--they are Works of Satan, and cannot exist near Jesus! Nor should they.
      Bigots are just bigots, regardless of how they choose to attempt to justify their actions. Christ, and therefore Christians, act from love; bigots act from hate.
      I have met many real Christians, and they are all fine people. I am honored to have known them.
      Master Dave
    • DustyinBFE, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Wow. Gotta love it! From what you just said ... because they don't agree with Christians ... they must be atheist then!
  • diggdotcom412, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Shorter lines. Even better!
  • askegg, on 05/09/2008, -6/+9Of course Christians would believe in mermaids - they already believe in talking snakes and donkeys, dinosaurs living alongside man like the Flintstones, leviathans, burning bushes, man-eating whales, winged horses, Jewish zombies, demons, angels, and muscular strength arising from the length of your hair. Makes perfect sense that you might want to ***** one if it spread its fins for you.
    • MasterDave, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I must be VERY strong, then!
      Oh: But, I'm not "Christian"! Damn!
    • PolarBearCa, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Hey - the mermaids didn't have to ride on Noah's Ark - they're the REAL chosen ones.
  • gardnerp, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Here's an interesting not on the more stylized mermaid logo. When it was first created it had nipples and lines for breasts, but just like this pressure groups got them to remove them. A friend worked as a graphic designer for them and told several stories about it. I heard that they also got sued by a woman who took offence to the inclusion of the famous painting "Rape of the Sabine Women" in an in-store wall collage. She either won the suit or they settled out of court, but either way the wall art was removed.

    Give me a break!
  • Ravage172, on 05/09/2008, -13/+6Ever notice when the Christians say they're going to boycott something it draws snickers and winks from the elitists, but if a Muslim finds something offensive they trip all over themselves to be the first to apologize for our American jingoistic ethnocentrism? I'm starting to think Ann Colter is right on target about the American Liberals.
    • nblsavage, on 05/09/2008, -2/+9actually I think all religion is drivel but I'm not going to excuse one just because it's popular in this country.
    • xen0blue, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3you're right but this 'Christian' group is still wrong for doing what its doing
    • Vector713, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2As a Christian who enjoys Starbucks, I completely agree with you.
    • MasterDave, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Gotta watch out for those "American Liberals"! They might want to protect YOUR freedom of speech, and that would be unthinkable!
      Who cares about the elitists anyway? With any luck (ie. due diligence on the part of law enforcement), they will be investigated, indicted, incarcerated, and have to return the loot they have taken from Us Americans over the years.
    • Tarotsan, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Christians aren't likely to try and blow you up. However, I imagine as many christians think these anti mermaid extremists are weird as there are Muslims who disagree with killing innocent people.
  • FredFredrickson, on 05/09/2008, -3/+7Does anyone really care what Christians boycott anymore? The only ones who participate in this ***** are the extremists anyway - the rest of them just keep on keepin' on.
    • Waterrat, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3 I sure don't. Don't they realize anytime they boycott something us non xtains will go check it out?
  • johnn11238, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Dugg for "Slutty Mermaid".
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.