digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at current.com

Starbucks logo under fire: shows partially covered breasts

current.com — The new retro logo at Starbucks is stirring controversy. The logo shows a mermaid with partially-covered breasts.A Christian group based in San Diego called The Resistance says the logo looks like a naked woman with her legs spread like a prostitute.The Resistance is calling for a national boycott of Starbucks.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • CyberSkull, on 05/18/2008, -11/+889Frankly this "Christian" group is off their rocker. If your going to boycott Starbuck's, there are many real reasons to do so.
    • Ridgeliner7, on 05/18/2008, -4/+89They did the same thing to the Los Angeles County seal a few years ago.....so no surprise here....its amazing, isn't it, that there are people out there looking for such things!
      • heliox, on 05/18/2008, -3/+24And pussy board actually acquiesced. The official seal was around for decades! I hate these types of groups, and when people give it, they get MORE power.
        • ElWizardo, on 05/18/2008, -1/+12They always take things out of context. I used to have a cup of joe at The Coffee Vagina until they closed it down.
        • Stroggoth, on 05/18/2008, -5/+36You just have to understand that religious folk are scared people; they are scared of death, they are scared of the unknown. The church gives them specific things to be scared about, so that they can feel "better" and less stressed about their fear with directed control behaviors. In this case, the church told them sex is bad, so they search for things to find sexually provocative. When you have that directive, then a coffee cup with a naked mermaid is beyond your control, and you need to control it by complaining. This is the same reason that so many hard-core republicans are scared of gay marriage, scared of other races, etc.

          Fear is a huge motivator.
        • DavidBGie, on 05/18/2008, -13/+7Ok, I'm as right-wing as a person gets on Digg. I AM NOT OFFENDED BY THE CUP!!!!!!!! Actually, I think it's great. So stop patting yourselves on the back libtards! It's not a right-wing issue. It's just the far-right wing nuts that are offended. The far left wing nuts are just as bad. They (Most Digg users) probably want a full tit shot on the cup.
        • DephexTwin, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4Eh? Libtards? What are you talking about?
        • kmg90, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4this is not a political issue
      • rlh1, on 05/18/2008, -1/+9I do believe that you are incorrect,
        It was the ACLU that had it changed because they had some crosses on the seal.
        The crosses represented the Spanish missions.
      • LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I blame video games,
        obviously this is GTA's fault.
    • nofrickenway, on 05/18/2008, -52/+6That is just a terrible logo regardless, whoever came up with it should be fired.
      • Goblin, on 05/18/2008, -1/+70No problem, we'll get right on with firing the 16th Century Norse Woodcutter that originally made it.
        • nofrickenway, on 05/18/2008, -32/+4LOL I just reread the article, thanks for that. It's still terrible.
        • CJUNIT, on 05/18/2008, -0/+22They're probably still pissy at the "Anti-God" messages on the cups http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=555 ...
        • whahaa, on 05/18/2008, -2/+9in all fairness though, i think it's likely that 16th Century Norse Woodcutter really was thinking of a 'naked woman with her legs spread' when he originally carved the thing. not that there's anything wrong with that.
        • chaosium, on 05/18/2008, -0/+10"They're probably still pissy at the "Anti-God" messages on the cups"

          They conveniently ignore the pro-God messages on some cups.
    • omeomi, on 05/18/2008, -5/+190I'll have to remember to stop at Starbucks a little more often while they're using this logo. I don't really even like their coffee that much, but I'm happy to support just about anybody being boycotted by one of these morality patrol groups.
      • DarkLance, on 05/18/2008, -3/+8that might be the idea behind bringing the logo back, stir up a bit of controversy. It works for the music biz, right Britney?
        • slifty, on 05/18/2008, -1/+7yeah, cause Britney's reputation as a musician and her album sales have skyrocketed as a result of all her controversy... oh wait.
        • ashfish, on 05/18/2008, -0/+7Actually the retro logo was brought back in conjunction with the Pike's Peak roast that they brought back. They're on this nostalgia kick because the Pike's Peak roast is the one they originally started with back in 71. Really thats the way of the country now, going back to retro style.
        • smithchr, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2I'd be willing to be it's a "Pike Place Roast" rather than "Pike's Peak Roast". Pike place being the giant market here in Seattle, and Pike's Peak being a tall mountain in Colorado.
        • metaliq, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1slifty---

          um. yes?
        • ashfish, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3@smithchr ah right you are, this is what happens when i try and post before my morning coffee quota is reached.
    • LeeSoong, on 05/18/2008, -6/+91Christian groups seeing prostitutes everywhere,
      coffee cups, Music CD album covers, in their church, etc...

      Sounds like somebody got 'issues'.
      (Their own wishful thinking?)

      When will fun-Duh-mental-ists
      accept they indeed are all god's creatures too
      - and as creatures they have sex,
      are born in flesh and blood, live and die
      just like every other animal on the planet.

      It's nice to have the big brain and sing songs and make tools,
      but strip away the clothing and technology and humans are just funny looking monkeys.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 05/18/2008, -1/+29heh, and if they think nudity is evil, they really would have found the baptisms of Jesus' time absolutely satanic.
      • chodges4, on 05/18/2008, -14/+1cmon..it's not that much of a stretch in this logo
        • ashfish, on 05/18/2008, -0/+9For normal people who aren't afraid of sex yeah it is actually. I didn't even fathom this before I heard about this weird-ass group, and I'm the biggest perv I know.
      • PolarBearCa, on 05/18/2008, -0/+12Considering this is a religion that can't even stick to its own reference guide ("He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8:7), I doubt they are going to make this leap any time soon.
      • Raian, on 05/18/2008, -0/+8Yeesh... I don't know where these "Christians" are finding their prostitutes... but it's either really close to a nuclear waste facility, or that aint no hooker... that's a fish with *****. Where are the feminists standing around waiting to clobber these bigots?
      • PopcornDave, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5It almost makes you wonder how they shower or bathe since they're naked at that point. Are they offended if they have to look in the mirror afterwards?
    • scottfarner, on 05/18/2008, -6/+55They should also boycott Dunkin Donuts. That "O" looks a lot like a prostitute's vagina/mouth/anus/ear...
      • Gir53457, on 05/18/2008, -0/+53Ear?
        • davethe1st, on 05/18/2008, -1/+35Ear Sex!
        • yosserhughes, on 05/18/2008, -0/+58I had a girlfreind once that wanted me to put it in her ear.
          Every time I tried to put it in her mouth she'd turn her head aside.
        • PolarBearCa, on 05/18/2008, -0/+15Haven't you heard of aural sex?
        • Shorties, on 05/18/2008, -1/+9Aural Sex
        • Fartag, on 05/18/2008, -0/+20Watch out, unprotected ear sex may lead to hearing aids!
        • Albumen, on 05/18/2008, -0/+8Shin Shi Shin Shi
      • directrix13, on 05/18/2008, -9/+3/goatse
      • cliffzdude, on 05/18/2008, -1/+16The "Christian Group" is a blog ran by a one pony nutcase. The guy's name is Mark Dice, his site is theresistancemanifesto.com.

        He is not a "group" of anything, just one more looney bird with a blog.


        • ngmcs8203, on 05/18/2008, -1/+11Wow this Mark Dice guy must be the king of all douchebags. He's just trying to pimp his lame book.
        • neko6, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2And shall we assume he has stock in StarBucks, knowing his stupidity will give them free advertisement?
      • foofightrs777, on 05/18/2008, -0/+14Furthermore they should boycott speech, writing, and all forms of communication as they could be used for immoral actions.
        • sephiroth965, on 05/18/2008, -0/+6They already do.
        • fredJdukes, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5Yeah, they've been working on that one for awhile!
    • crowbar77, on 05/18/2008, -3/+31Yeah like how they treat there employees. What kind of idiot thought of free healthcare and other benefits, including a higher wage than most of its competitors.
      • subterfuge, on 05/18/2008, -8/+8nothing is ever free, including healthcare. did you mean employer-provided?
      • sogydave, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3And it's not even free. It's cheap, but it's not free.

        I must say though, as a Starbucks employee, the part time benefits, opportunity for advancement, and comparatively high starting wages make it a great place to work.

        Blind hatred towards "Corporate Starbucks" always made me laugh. People don't realize how much Starbucks actually gives back to the world. *scoff*
        • desuexmachina, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1There was a rant about hating Starbucks I read which really made me change my mind about them. I'm old enough to remember how it was before Starbucks became huge. So I remember the crappy coffee people used to make. Now with the competition from Starbucks, even mom and pop diners are serving much better coffee. As a consumer, this rant was quite enlightening. I may not shop at Starbucks very often but I do love that I can now get a decent cappuccino in every one-horse town in North America.
    • shinedout, on 05/18/2008, -8/+50Right on Cyberskull, these people are insane. Only a group of extremely sexually repressed individuals would notice something so tiny like this and make a HUGE deal about it...

      ..Oh yeah, its a terrible thing to see a partially nude fixture on a coffee cup, but its totally cool to take an army and shoot a bunch of people in a country that had no threat to us...

      Just sayin'...
      • unreg, on 05/18/2008, -11/+6Thats stretching it a bit, don't you think?
        • shinedout, on 05/18/2008, -0/+10Well maybe, I am definitely generalizing with that comment, I'll give you that - but the religious way right really supports the war and condemns silly things like a 2 tailed mermaid with partial nudity.
        • unreg, on 05/18/2008, -2/+17It's also the religious zealots that slammed those airliners into the World Trade Center.

          Religion has played a role in the majority of our conflict, one way or another.
        • shinedout, on 05/18/2008, -2/+2Yeah totally agreed
        • neonfunk, on 05/18/2008, -0/+9when someone can cry about a loose titty and get more attention than a devastating war (now) does -- that's stretching it?
      • desuexmachina, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2For being a sexually repressed group I wouldn't doubt that they're probably out-breeding you.

        Religion is all about propagating the flock. They may rail against it in public, but they're doing quite well in private.
    • wacomwacoff, on 05/18/2008, -2/+64What kills me is that Starbucks used this logo for years when they first got started... but only now that they've brought it back for a promo do the Christians freak out. You're about 20 years late, fellas.
      • mcapplbee, on 05/18/2008, -21/+5Why do you say "the Christians" like it's all of us? Seriously, "The Resistance" doesn't even represent A QUARTER of American Christians.

        So please, think before you type.
        • wacomwacoff, on 05/18/2008, -1/+14Jeez. Defensive much? I was brought up Christian; I wasn't referring to ALL Christians on Earth. Since I was talking about this story, I was clearly referring to the Christians involved in 'The Resistance'.

          Please, think before you get all reactionary.
      • ChuyMatt, on 05/18/2008, -0/+15The actual issue is that they are sexually repressed and only THEY thought it looked like a prostitute. They hate that they thought that but are unwilling to take personal responsibility for it so they go after someone else for their warped mind. It happens all the time.
      • proto, on 05/18/2008, -0/+9Yup, this is their classic Starbucks logo from when they started in the 70s. (Remember? Sexual revolution? Free thinking? Oh nevermind. . .)

        Just a question: what happens to these Resistance folk when they walk though a museum with classical painting and sculpture? Rodin, Rubens, Michelangelo and the others better watch out!
        • fredJdukes, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4they paint over / clothe them.
          those works actually need protection from yahoos like this
    • dixienormous101, on 05/18/2008, -5/+39looks like "spread legs"??? Are you ***** serious? It's based off a two-tailed mermaid. Wtf are these idiots smoking?
      • lamiaconfitor, on 05/18/2008, -0/+17that must mean they find it arousing.
      • psylemon, on 05/18/2008, -1/+18christians taking something out of context? nahh..
      • Ivorydrive, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3better stuff than what I'm smoking, apparently.
      • Dropscience, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1probably that good *****
    • alex4u2nv, on 05/18/2008, -4/+44Thank goodness this is a generation that will be dead or senile in about 20years!
      • foofightrs777, on 05/18/2008, -2/+11..And then they're bain-washed children will take up the fight. Watch Jesus camp...that's some scary Taliban-like stuff.

        But, it makes you wonder that aporx 1/5 of Americans are evangelical and routinely on every issue that you'd think 99.99% of sane not retarded people would oppose/support there's always that 20% that contradicts every standard of common sense and American values. Can't we just give the evangelicals North Dakota or something so they can stay out of the year 2008 we can return to a sanity?
      • thedogfatherx, on 05/18/2008, -2/+1Thats quite a mean thing to say. There will always be crazies walking around and doing crazy things. Quite ignorant to blame it on a generation.
        • groberts1980, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Mean, yes. But true. Think about some of the things that will change when Generations X and Y are in charge.
    • brianjlowry, on 05/18/2008, -14/+6Their coffee is terrible and overpriced.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 05/18/2008, -1/+7True, but does that really matter? I hate their coffee too, but am outraged by the stupidity of people opposing logos. Like it is going to traumatize someones children... Bull! these peoples children probably know more about sex then their parents do.
      • starkruzr, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1First point is subjective, second point is debatable, as large portions of that cost go to the fact that they actually treat their employees really well.

        Starbucks is a very good corporate citizen and gets ***** on because idiots like to bash anything that is popular and does well.
        • brianjlowry, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I'm not bashing them because they are popular or are doing well, I just really don't like their coffee. I'd take McDonald's any day, and with the money I could save, I could buy an extra cup and take a plane flight to your house for you to try.
    • narcofiche, on 05/18/2008, -4/+16Seriously, these Christian extremists are some of the most perverted people. I would LOVE to go to some of those meetings where they display a bunch of logos, drink some of the holy wine and make up a bunch of perverted things. It already sounds like what I do with my friends, except we partake in the holy herb.

      I also wonder if Starbucks knew it was going to cause some kind of backlash. I've become increasingly skeptical about corporations, and I wouldn't be surprised if "The Resistance" is just some made up group to get some free publicity/advertising.
      • groberts1980, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1They must have guessed. I mean, they've gone through logo changes before to make it a bit more PG rated. You should see the real original, it's like the current "retro" one, but with fully bared breasts.
    • FuckThaMeme, on 05/18/2008, -1/+67How does this Christian group know what a naked prostitute spreading her legs looks like?

      ...
      • foofightrs777, on 05/18/2008, -0/+12They don't as evidenced by the fact that they don't know that mermaids don't have legs.
      • mhuggins, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5Touché!
      • ElbowGeek, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3How? Just read the papers over the last 20 years - it's clear that they've done a lot of first-hand research.
        • SuperCujo, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4But their research has been on young boys, not mermaids.
    • kakwakas, on 05/18/2008, -4/+8I said I want a LARGE, goddammit!
    • mcapplbee, on 05/18/2008, -9/+7Thank you Cyberskull for not generalizing.

      A lot of the Digg users on this post are just looking for an excuse to hate on Christianity. This group, "The Resistance" does not speak for all of us. Nor do they speak for the majority of us.

      Can you all just back off? I don't make mocking comments on your world views.
      • Macrophallus, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0How do you "hate on" something? Also, Christianity isn't a world view, it is a disease.
    • sjl127, on 05/18/2008, -2/+7This is over-board. There's fanatics in every religion, however, at least they don't want to kill us.
    • candre23, on 05/18/2008, -1/+11I think the boycott is a great idea. If the kooks refuse to go to Starbucks, then I won't have to deal with them when I get my morning coffee. Anything that makes the line shorter...
    • LosingTheFight, on 05/18/2008, -2/+15Honestly, I agree. as a Christian minister, I don't really see any major problems. Sure, it may be a little suggestive, but this isn't exactly a high priority. There are many other more serious matters we/they should be targeting.
      • Macrophallus, on 05/19/2008, -5/+1You are devoting your life to *****. It's pretty sad.
      • chaosium, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4Popular religion is a lot like politics that way.
      • iamafatguy, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Suggestive of what?

        The ocean?
        • desuexmachina, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Maybe an imaginary thing some people made up to trick other people into believing...
    • da_bradler, on 05/18/2008, -0/+16Didn't christian groups already boycott starbucks because of the inspirational messages they wrote on the cups a while back?(I believe one vaguely challenged the existence of god by saying you should only believe in yourself or some other horrible thing *rolls eyes*)
    • Magicmasta, on 05/18/2008, -6/+4*you're
    • OstrakonX, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4Pardon my ignorance, but -why- are there good reasons to boycott Starbucks?

      I'm not trying to claim there aren't or be snide or whatever; I'd just like to know.
      • jenrzzz1, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Burnt coffee, poor service, basic anti-corporate hate
      • groberts1980, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Honestly, I don't know. They make great coffee. There is this local coffee shop in the lobby of my building, that I go to a few times a week. I always get a large latte. It's not bad. Then one day I had a meeting in the Hilton a few blocks away, and a meeting before the meeting in the Starbucks in the hotel lobby. I ordered a vente latte, and was amazed at how much better Starbucks made a latte than the local shop in my building. I now wish Starbucks would buy out the local shop and convert it.
    • artliquide, on 05/18/2008, -0/+6I won't talk about reasons to, or not to boycott Starbucks (I work there). To each his own.

      But, this is so ridiculous. The original logo was more revealing, and corporate toned it down this time around.

      And, this is a promotional image anyway. So, they'll get what they want, even if it has nothing to do with what they want.

      Some people's lives must be so boring that they look for evil where there is none.

      I think I'll boycott Christianity for producing morons like such groups.
    • smizacks02, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1many real reasons is right, like... not actually having a prostitute.
      • theradical, on 05/18/2008, -0/+6Note to Christians: Prostitutes are not the only ones who spread their legs. Your mothers did it too!
    • sk11, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2It's amazing, given that some of the most highly regarded christian artwork has nudity, such as that at the sistine chapel and the statue of david. And these pieces were made back when christians were supposed to be rather more prude, showing thighs was an arrestable offence for example.
    • schroderr224, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2How can you be offended by the greatest thing on earth? Boobies.
    • hitokiri808, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1How about boycotting them for not grinding coffee in house...
  • blackjack75, on 05/18/2008, -33/+847If she's a prostitute, then get on your knees and wash her feet, *****.

    -- Jesus.

    (I might have added a few letters to the original text, but you get the idea).
    • davethe1st, on 05/18/2008, -2/+116...but she has no feet?
      • LeeSoong, on 05/18/2008, -1/+13Rub warm sand on her ... scales ???
      • sakuraz, on 05/18/2008, -1/+11Then her fins!

        Mermaids have feelings too, you know:'(
    • minorthreat, on 05/18/2008, -3/+17Watch out Coppertone girl, http://www.phillyburbs.com/shore/images/coppertone ... I can see half your 10 year old ass and when you get dressed, you better cover up those ankles!
      • localzuk, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2Lol, the resistance group has less people in it than the number of starbucks stores worldwide...
      • Bluezdood, on 05/18/2008, -3/+5Hi I'm Chris Hansen, why don't you have a seat right there, just sit right there, go ahead.
    • theragu40, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4Well played...I was going to say, I don't know why this bothers anyone. Seriously, people need to get a grip.
    • BoonTobias, on 05/18/2008, -4/+5what i don't understand is what the problem is with semi nakkid mermaids. i mean who didn't fap to the little one back in the day?
    • EarlOfLade, on 05/18/2008, -14/+38I want the bible banned!
      It's harmful to kids, it's filled with some of the worst forms of violence known to man, it' has some real disturbing sexual references, talks about killing babies, nailing poeple to pieces of wood, talks about burning people alive in lakes of fire.
      Quite frankly, this book need at least an age limit of 18 and to be marked with clearly visible stickers informing people about the violent and sexual content.
      It would have been best if this book was not sold in stores due to it's violent and graphic content, if sold in book stores, it should be placed in the Science-Fiction section.
      • noangelcame, on 05/18/2008, -7/+2Unless Jesus rose to Heaven on a rocket-ship, the bible doesn't belong in Science-Fiction I think,.. mingling with the Star Wars and the Aliens.
        • ADHD, on 05/18/2008, -3/+2Its not tied to reality, gravity or physics and has otherwordly creatures in it that are not "human".

          Its science fiction as much as the scientologist book
        • sephiroth965, on 05/18/2008, -3/+4No it doesn't belong with the science fiction. It belongs in the fantasy section.
        • SuperCujo, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2If I go into a book store and find myself in the religious section by accident, I always make a point to pick up a bible or quran and move it to the fantasy section.

          I know some nerd will have a good chuckle when they find it. :)
      • cheungroys, on 05/19/2008, -3/+5seriously... 99.9% of all religion is made up (basically, *****). Religion only exist because those unfortunate people had to look for someone they can cry to... and that's how religion is born. That's right, you Christians only believe in God because you are unfortunate... and you want someone to make you feel better, so you look for a virtual friend, called God.

        *Just watch all the Christians bury me... because deep inside, they know it's true, God is virtual.
        • brightshadow525, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3Keep dreaming... Oh, by the way, say hi to Satan for me, I don't think I'll get a chance to meet him.
    • bxblox, on 05/18/2008, -3/+9The hooker washed his feet... not the other way around.
      • erhanaltay, on 05/18/2008, -16/+19Actually neither washed anyone's feet since the Bible is a fantasy.
        • methos75, on 05/18/2008, -8/+8As a whole maybe, but Jesus and his travels were very real and has archological data to back it up. He might not have been divine, but 2000 years ago there was a a very real person named jesus who had a very real progressive message going on very real travels preaching that message, and that is irrefutable.
        • bxblox, on 05/18/2008, -4/+7The bible is a book. I stated what was actually in the book. I wasn't arguing whether it happened or not. Digg is like the westboro baptist church for atheists.
        • creepermclurker, on 05/18/2008, -3/+8@methos75

          Actually the reality of a man named Jesus and what he may or may not have done IS refutable. If you're going to say something is irrefutable you're going to have to site at least some sources.
      • blackjack75, on 05/18/2008, -1/+5Hm, I think you're right about the prostitute actually. She was the one to wash his feet with her tears and her hair. Jesus only washed the fee of his disciples AFAIK.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

        But I stick on the '*****' part :-)
    • quiggibub, on 05/18/2008, -2/+18Now now, being christian has nothing to do with following the teachings of Jesus. It's about banning gay marriage and hardcore modesty.
      • Macrophallus, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0They definitely get the modesty thing all wrong.
    • mrhaines, on 05/18/2008, -2/+2Man what you wrote in brackets made my day.
    • PonyBones, on 05/18/2008, -5/+1Sir, I want to tell you that I've signed up for this digg thing to applaud openly to your very wise comment.
      Your grasp of Christ's message is most astute. Tell me, are you attending seminary at this time?
    • acroyear2, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2I am going to put an ad on craigslist to wash a hooker's feet.
    • soden240, on 05/18/2008, -3/+3"feet" was a term used for genitalia in the bible. look it up.
  • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/18/2008, -10/+618OMG NO!! not BREASTS!!! /faints
    /end of the world
    • Daniel591992, on 05/18/2008, -0/+15Heh, my chem teacher (at a Catholic school) has a tattoo of a naked lady on his arm, but no one cares.
      • zephyr42, on 05/18/2008, -3/+12That's because catholics don't really take their religion that seriously... for the most part
    • xxMarka, on 05/18/2008, -0/+8I know seriously I like breasts
    • str1fe, on 05/18/2008, -0/+23OMG TITTIES!! PROTECT THE CHILDREN!!
      • pilot3033, on 05/18/2008, -0/+9YES! STOP THE BREAST FEEDING! SAVE THE CHILDREN!!!!111!!1!11one!!111eleven!!111!!
    • AvidPreatorian, on 05/18/2008, -0/+13this is a case of "only in america"
      • Macrophallus, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Or any Muslim country. Pretty sad to be in that boat.
    • blqysmg, on 05/18/2008, -1/+16Silly rabbit, ***** are for kids.
    • cruzlee, on 05/18/2008, -0/+18In Europe, children DRINK from *****.
      • Emnsta, on 05/18/2008, -0/+6barbarians...
      • Macrophallus, on 05/19/2008, -2/+0In Soviet Russia, ***** drink from children.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1That's disgusting. You don't know where those tings have been. It's safer just to use a some stuff that came from the store as a powder. Being a Mammal is so barbaric.
    • hansblix, on 05/18/2008, -2/+4You should be happy.

      This means the rapture is coming soon.

      /*****
    • mystdragon333, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4While they do nothing to stop actual prostitutes...
    • moush, on 05/18/2008, -0/+6Aren't there breasts in the bible?
      • riyehn, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Among others:
        "Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times" - Proverbs 5:19 (KJV)

        "A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts." - Song of Solomon 1:13

        "Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies." - Song of Solomon 4:5

        "I said, 'I will climb the palm tree; / I will take hold of its fruit.' / May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, / the fragrance of your breath like apples" - Song of Solomon 7:8

        "And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity" - Ezekiel 23:3

        "We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts" - Song of Solomon 8:8
  • soot, on 05/18/2008, -25/+253What a ***** slut
    • wpyh, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Or: What a sucking flut.
    • plaing, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2from what i can see, to call 'the resistance' a 'christian group' is really a bit misleading. no doubt the guy is a christian, but he's definitely not associated with anything approximating a denomination or any other standard of accountability. more of a conspiracy theorist with a webpage.
      http://www.theresistancemanifesto.com/index.php
  • Princeamor, on 05/18/2008, -31/+9AAAAANNNDDDD?????
  • xman00, on 05/18/2008, -41/+26I for one welcome our new mermaid overlords.
    • leb0wski, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Don't really know why you were dug down for this one...
  • Enche, on 05/18/2008, -6/+66"Starbucks says the logo is appropriate. It'll be around for a few weeks."
    Only a few weeks? Are they giving in or is this some sort of really lame promotional thing?
    • nofrickenway, on 05/18/2008, -17/+4The new Starbucks PCP Coffee

      "so much cream N sugar it'll make you fat, take off your clothes, and you'll think you have fins!"
      • Enche, on 05/18/2008, -2/+6If I may ask, wtf?
        • nofrickenway, on 05/18/2008, -8/+0"is this some sort of really lame promotional thing?"

          Now look at the logo, then reread my comment.
        • MadHarvey, on 05/18/2008, -1/+7I still don't get it.....

          OH *****! The mermaid is a hedonistic symbol, and.. PCP is a drug! Sugar is a street name for PCP. Starbucks is subtly advertising their foray into illegal drugs! If you order a Pike Place Coffee with "sugar" and say "sugar" with a wink while pointing to the mermaid, they'll allow you to purchase single doses of PCP?! No fricken way... And the whole think-you-have-fins thing is the hallucinagenic affects of the drug right?

          Did I figure it out?
    • wacomwacoff, on 05/18/2008, -1/+58It's just a promo. This is their original logo.. they're using it to promote their new Pike Place coffee. The modern green logo will be back in the summer.
    • azbmr, on 05/18/2008, -1/+45Yes, it is the original logo based on some Nordic woodcut made in the 1400s (back when people didn't have time to be offended about stupid things) that they are re-using to promote their "going back to basics" campaign.
      • ripple123, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3nords love coffee.
      • Gryffydd, on 05/18/2008, -7/+2Geez, it's not the freaking original logo.
        • tonicboy, on 05/18/2008, -2/+7close enough, stop being so anal
        • SatansSpatula, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4It's not close enough. It's quite noticeably different. Specifically, where are her nipples?

          They've already revised it to avoid offending our "modern sensibilities" (i.e. enough time and money to get offended by stupid, meaningless *****), so it's all the more shocking that the jackasses *still* managed to find offense in it.
    • unreg, on 05/18/2008, -1/+8It's getting the expected results. Any publicity is good publicity.
    • peestandingup, on 05/18/2008, -2/+24FYI, everyone. This is NOT the original logo. The original one showed bare breasts w/ nipples & is actually still used in a few locations. The new one is more toned down.

      http://dn.codegear.com/article/images/20717/starbu ...
      • Enche, on 05/18/2008, -1/+8go .com yourself
        • rrbest, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3lol wtf does that mean? I'm sure they were trying to be trendy but that reads like go ***** yourself
  • Yusami, on 05/18/2008, -40/+11Dugg down because this was on the front page A FEW WEEKS AGO.

    Digg is getting more and more sorry, I swear.
    • curseoflou, on 05/18/2008, -3/+4u shouldn't swear... it's unchristian like :P
    • dixienormous101, on 05/18/2008, -3/+4dugg down for being a negative nancy
    • unreg, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3more and more sorry?

      • Yusami, on 05/18/2008, -3/+0Okay...That's it! I'm going to Reddit!
        • twiztidsinz, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
        • TonyLocNE, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1and we care why......?
          In the year and five months you've been on digg, you've only submitted two stories and dugg only six... I'm pretty sure we can get by without your lame ass.
        • Yusami, on 05/21/2008, -0/+0Surely member status doesn't entail lurk time does it...

          People tend to lurk before ever posting and in the 3 year years I've had Digg set as my home page I've seen a lot of things and now those things are being repeated i.e. the movie spoiler tee-shirt.
  • dha07030, on 05/18/2008, -2/+739If you come home to find your kid jerking off to the Starbucks logo you have bigger problems.
  • mciampa1214, on 05/18/2008, -1/+403I'm sure Starbucks will do just fine with out those 6 peoples business.
    • fr3ddie, on 05/18/2008, -6/+10for every coffee they dont drink, ill drink 2.
    • minorthreat, on 05/18/2008, -0/+9Im' sure they will too. It always seems to be the right who have no knowledge of history and would be happy burning all of our books in the in name of saving our children from viewing a prostitute with her legs spread. You know, I personally didn't see a prostitute with her legs spread until they mentioned it. Gee, I wonder what's on their minds.

      The leader of the group in Texas, Ted Haggard, countless number of priests - They are all perverts.
  • LingLing1337, on 05/18/2008, -9/+238Is this really all that Christian groups have to worry about? Message to The Resistance: Get a ***** life.
    • toasty168, on 05/18/2008, -1/+24right... forget about feeding and housing the homeless. forget about single mothers. forget about children without parents... we've got to fight off images of partially covered breasts!!!!
    • Skooma714, on 05/18/2008, -0/+7They're moralists. They really don't have anything better to do.
    • skinflute, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3They only worry about one thing: selling their "Manifesto".
      Getting attention in the media for things like this probably helps them make more money.
    • PolicePeople, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2wow, i guess they've been picking up some pretty ***** up hookers.
    • biotch, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3seriously ...
      Hey christians... GROW UP!
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I'd prefer them wasting their time on crap like this than trying to get Intelligent Design taught in science class. Maybe Ben Stein can make a movie about how naked mermaids leads to the Holocaust.
  • eliburford, on 05/18/2008, -14/+96People like this make me feel bad for having Christian views.
    • spdorsey, on 05/18/2008, -26/+19Then stop having Christian views. Your views clearly are not in line with theirs if you disagree on something as natural as the human body and its place in society. There's a reason that religious followers are called a "flock" - sheep don't think for themselves.
      • MarsSentinel, on 05/18/2008, -4/+7Lots of reasons to feel badly about having Christian views (notices they're not called "thoughts") other than fear of breasts (which, IMO, rock-ur-boxers))
      • COinOR, on 05/18/2008, -6/+11no, these aren't "Christian views," they're some Christians' views. and don't feel bad for yourself for not sharing said views. and just because you disagree with a very small group within a larger group doesn't mean you need to disassociate with the larger. that's just stupid. that's like saying you hate what the green party is doing, so you're not going to be an american anymore, as if those are the only two choices. can you be an american and challenge some means & values of other americans? yes, because those values aren't essential to being an american.

        and if you think you're not a sheep because you're accepting of this breasty image, you've forgotten that starbucks has banked on people like you being ok with it. welcome to your flock. we've all got one.
        • spdorsey, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Hallelujah (wink)

          Good paragraph, COinOR.
        • xxMarka, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1AWKWARD DIGG MOMENT
        • ICSU, on 05/18/2008, -2/+4Repression of sexuality is one of the main religious ways to control people's lives.
    • citizen782, on 05/18/2008, -22/+33I can provide you with about a dozen more reasons you should feel bad about having Christian views. Or supporting any organized religion for that matter.
    • Bodhinature, on 05/18/2008, -14/+11I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons to feel bad about "Christian views." They haven't hindered your faith so far, I don't see why this should.
    • erhanaltay, on 05/18/2008, -15/+13The answer to everything is Jesus... I bet I'd ace any Christian school's exams.
    • minestrone11, on 05/18/2008, -5/+7Whatever. Just follow what you believe--and clearly, you believe this Starbucks thing is crazy.
    • sonofffej, on 05/18/2008, -2/+3It also angers me when stupid people think, believe, or like the same things I do.

      I don't remember the part of the Bible that said something vaguely and unintentionally resembling nudity was evil.
      • altf13, on 05/18/2008, -1/+3Just for the record, there is nothing vague or unintentional about it. It's a mermaid. It's naked. It was drawn intentionally.

        And if it angers you that "stupid people think, believe, or like the same things" that you do, you should probably reconsider the kinds of things you think, believe and like.

        Just sayin'...
  • berad, on 05/18/2008, -3/+100I can say unequivocally based on the amount of Starbucks coffee that is consumed in my own church that this ban is not applicable to Christians, but to a radical sect. :-)
    • lisaawesome, on 05/18/2008, -0/+16Shoot I believe one of our local mega churches has their very own Starbucks inside! I wonder if they're going to join the boycott.
  • Narcism, on 05/18/2008, -1/+310You mean only prostitutes spread their legs?
    • dstz, on 05/18/2008, -0/+60Decent women do it with legs crossed.
    • roystgnr, on 05/18/2008, -1/+24In the minds of "The Resistance" membership, at least. They see a position signifying eagerness to have sex, and they immediately think "prostitute".

      I think we can now start to guess at what kind of relationships they must have with their wives... and perhaps their wives are now starting to guess at what kind of relationships they must have with prostitutes.
    • cambob76, on 05/18/2008, -3/+9yes. decent girls take it in the ass from behind to keep their virginity. hmmm I might burn for that one.
  • Tubaman3010, on 05/18/2008, -4/+50Mermaids have feet?
  • RyanCoke, on 05/18/2008, -2/+46I like the fact that the "Resistance" points out that they think this depicts a lady with her legs spread.
    What kind of women do they know that have scaly fish legs?
    Though if I ever find a woman that can bend like that...
  • thespi007, on 05/18/2008, -35/+14NSFW FTW ...
    • sephiroth965, on 05/18/2008, -2/+1It's the Starbucks logo FFS. Plenty of people in your work place are probably already carrying it around every morning.
    • Papajohn56, on 05/18/2008, -2/+2shut up
  • MusicMagi, on 05/18/2008, -6/+56They're just breasts for god's sake (no pun intended) They need to find more productive things to do with their time than boycotting images of breasts..
    • TheLastFreeMan, on 05/18/2008, -3/+3What's the pun?
    • centerblack, on 05/18/2008, -0/+12Seriously. People get so ***** weird about it. It's just *****. Everyone has them. Some are bigger than others.

      Some of these Christians are insane. I had a room mate in college... we were sitting around watching TV, and on whatever we were watching, this girls ***** were about to pop out. We're telling this kid to come look, and he's like "NO, IF THAT HAPPENED, I WOULD AVERT MY EYES, IT'S A SIN".

      Where the ***** does it say it's a sin to look at the human body? Well after that we posted porn all over the walls and he would just come in the house and go to his room and not talk to anyone. He moved out a few weeks later.
    • takua108, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1They need to find more REproductive things do do with their time...
  • spdorsey, on 05/18/2008, -7/+84WHO CARES?!?!?!?!?!
    • protium, on 05/18/2008, -5/+2God does....
      • iamafatguy, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Shouldn't there be more pressing matters to be concerned about?
    • jc7012, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5I do, how dare they partially cover them.
      I'm just as mad as the resistance.



      Nips or GTFO
  • fakekevinrose, on 05/18/2008, -5/+54i like to beat off when i sip my frappuccino, please don't cover the breasts
  • Typhoon2009, on 05/18/2008, -16/+3cOLD
  • bharadwajharish, on 05/18/2008, -3/+21ok,people go to star bucks for coffee,not for staring at partially covered breasts
    if they want all they have to do is draw one and stare at .
  • blakck, on 05/18/2008, -21/+16The name of the leader of The Resistance is Mark Dice and he's a Ron Paul supporter as well. Can't seem to raise money like him though.
    http://www.theresistancemanifesto.com/index.php



    • purzzzell, on 05/18/2008, -2/+2What pisses me off more than anything is when people/groups get satanism and satan worship confused.


      EDIT: I was wrong - just read the whole writeup on Satanism - they pretty much got it right - good for them!
      • Bartboy919, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2I laughed my ***** ass off when I saw they have only raised $7 in donations. That group is ***** retarded.
    • crzdmn, on 05/18/2008, -2/+1Dude thanks for the good laugh. I almost pissed myself when I read the "slutbucks" title then "speaking of sluts..." with a picture of barbara streisan. spelling????
    • jokher, on 05/18/2008, -1/+7He's not a very good Ron Paul supporter to be fighting for censorship.
    • murphygr, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2what a jackass, did you see the video on the front page? thats the way to drum up support, act like a child
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1WORST RON PAUL SUPPORTER EVER!!!!
      I am a good Ron Paul supporter because I support starbbucks having whatever logo they want, but also this D-bag's right to buy the cups and burn them if he wants to.
  • Hincapie, on 05/18/2008, -5/+176Does that mean they'll change the image of Jesus on the cross? It's too gory, people might not like that.
    • Bartboy919, on 05/18/2008, -2/+30Apparently yo don't know the US to well, most people could care less about someone being maimed, but show one titty and the country goes berserk.
    • sintaxi, on 05/18/2008, -3/+13actually they did. according to scripture jesus was naked
      • takua108, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1If Christians needed one more thing to be made fun of, it would be a hundred tiny penises hanging out at each church...
    • Starbuck1959, on 05/18/2008, -1/+13Gory's cool with the Christo-fascisti! The more gore the better. And Christ on a Cross is fine, because .... lots of blood, lots of agony... and no wiggle-inducing view of genitals.
    • mcapplbee, on 05/18/2008, -3/+3Who is this "they"? Are you referring to "The Resistance"? Because if you actually read the article, it's "THEM" making a big deal out of a logo.

      "They" do not and will not ever represent Christianity as a whole.
      • neko, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Yeah, that's the problem, no-one ever represents anything as a whole.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/18/2008, -0/+8And you can see his nipples.
  • pond70, on 05/18/2008, -9/+2Starbucks time ....
  • V0rt, on 05/18/2008, -10/+3A bit odd a site called current.com is posting news several weeks old.
    • Konstantino, on 05/18/2008, -1/+4Current is a social news site like Digg...
      That said, it's odd to see Digg has stories linking to another submission at a different site linking to the article.
  • bicyclethief, on 05/18/2008, -1/+50The Resistance? With a pretentious and grandiose name like that, they better be fighting against Skynet besides Starbuck.

    Is the mermaid supposed to wear a turtleneck? Dumbass prudes.

  • 1807, on 05/18/2008, -4/+12FIrst of all..that's not the new logo..that's what their original logo looked like. They changed it to what it used to be after the "controversy" about the breasts. In my opinon, it shouldn't be such a big deal. Next your going to tell me indian mascots are offensive..
    • crzdmn, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1They already have in NY. All high schools depicting "Native Americans" in an aggressive manor had to change their mascot.
    • Asheis, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1being a Portland/Seattle citizen, I thought it was funny how the article was calling it the "new" retro logo. This logo has been around since Starbucks opened, and if you go to their "first" store in Seattle, they still have that original logo. Seriously, fact-checkers wanted!
  • soopertoll, on 05/18/2008, -2/+189lol. usa. greetings from europe. i'll go to the beach now having a bit of a titty-sighting.
    • V0rt, on 05/18/2008, -7/+19We got nude beaches here. They're just full of old saggy hippies. LOL
    • OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 05/18/2008, -3/+30I know, people over here in the States are so uptight. It should be as legal and socially acceptable for me to walk around without a shirt as it is for males.
      • brdude, on 05/18/2008, -0/+9Actually there are some states in the US where it's legal.
      • mhuggins, on 05/18/2008, -1/+15Soooo what are you doing tonight?
      • fxu1989, on 05/18/2008, -1/+13AND I AGREE!

        You should be able to walk around without a shirt .... but don't get mad if they're staring at you, or see something pop-up.
      • CoolBluReason, on 05/18/2008, -2/+2YEAH!
    • dixienormous101, on 05/18/2008, -24/+1Dear soopertoll,

      We're proud of you and your "having a bit of a titty-sighting". Please don't cross the river. Kkthx.

      Sincerely,

      The U.S.A.
      • CoolBluReason, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4That big body of water between America and Europe is called the Atlantic "Ocean." Not really a river by any person's standards.
        • dixienormous101, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0That reply that I gave to sooper
          was probably laced with "sarcasm".
          Not really detectable by CoolBluReason's
          standards.
      • diggrnumber1, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2his profile says he lives in swaziland, so he's probably lying because the only person in swaziland that can afford a computer is the king.
    • gwycliff, on 05/18/2008, -3/+7pics or it didn't happen.
    • cnot3, on 05/18/2008, -3/+1Won't somebody please think of the children!
    • cruzlee, on 05/18/2008, -3/+8LOL. USA. Greetings from Saudi Arabia. I'll go to the beach now, to have some massive fun with all my male friends.
  • KtownReject0358, on 05/18/2008, -4/+13Yeah because the Starbucks logo is totally influencing me to have pre-martial sex.

    I agree with you Cyber Skull. If you're going to protest Starbucks it should be for other reasons instead of its "sexual" logo.
    • artliquide, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3What influences pre-marital sex is the inane restrictions on what the children of people like this see. Tell your 13-18 year old kid they can't do or see something. What do they do? They want to see and do it more because it's taboo. A little common sense would do militant Christians some good.
  • Kranklin, on 05/18/2008, -1/+6Can't people boycott starbucks and it not make the front page of digg over and over.... Just wait until they do something like use Microsoft based coffee maker, then all of digg will try boycotting it. I really can't understand people paying so much for coffee anyway
  • TheMachine1, on 05/18/2008, -1/+87A prostitute's service fees in many countries are cheaper that the price of a cup of Starbucks.
    • cambob76, on 05/18/2008, -1/+7WHERE?????
    • wibambau, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I bet it's probably cheaper to get checked by the doctor too.
  • geneusutwerk, on 05/18/2008, -3/+29The Resistance also believes that 9/11 was an inside job and in the existence of the Illuminati.
    http://www.theresistancemanifesto.com/modules.php? ...
    • psylence, on 05/18/2008, -2/+10So does most of Digg!
    • blqysmg, on 05/18/2008, -4/+1Okay, I'm agreeing with the 9/11 inside job part. The Illuminati is a bit of a stretch...
    • Gneekman, on 05/18/2008, -0/+7Jesus H. Christ.
      From what I can gather from tat site, this guy is ***** insane.
      A small thing I happened to notice: in the section on Terminators (weird enough) there is mention of roboticized cockroaches, except it is spelled "****roaches" as if it is a dirty word.
      Wow.
    • krismanx, on 05/18/2008, -2/+1I'm going to have some fun with this forum =)
  • yuutokun, on 05/18/2008, -11/+3Partially covered breasts?!NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
    • yuutokun, on 05/18/2008, -4/+4OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
      • yuutokun, on 05/18/2008, -3/+4OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
        Wait what were we talking about?
      • rd3k, on 05/18/2008, -0/+6Stop talking to yourself.
  • Mattwdj, on 05/18/2008, -5/+21I guess most christians have never seen a breast before and god forbid they ever do.
  • diggtz, on 05/18/2008, -19/+143Ahh Christians, the most sexually repressed/obsessed people on the planet. Controlling minds and genitals for 2000+ years.
    • BraveQuail, on 05/18/2008, -0/+32Um Muslims?
      • secrity, on 05/18/2008, -0/+13Only 1600+ years
      • altgeeky1, on 05/18/2008, -1/+9Good point. They're newcomers to this, but they've upped the Christians by +1 with female genital mutilation.
        • xNIBx, on 05/18/2008, -2/+6Many christians in the US mutilate circumcise their babies. For me that is as barbaric as female genital mutilation. Yet this is not only socially acceptable but sometimes socially necessary in the US. But hell, US still has death penalty.
        • j3ff86, on 05/18/2008, -1/+6And male circumcision isn't genital mutilation? Granted the intent/outcome is not as bad, but it's mutilation none the less.
        • cruzlee, on 05/18/2008, -3/+2Oh ppl, FFS, come on. You seriously think male circumcision is as barbaric as female genital mutilation? You gotta be ***** kidding me. They take out their ***** you baboon...
          ***** != foreskin.
        • xNIBx, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4I think that some people only cut the "hood" of the ***** which is similar to the foreskin. In any case, both are barbaric and inhumane. So what if some muslims can the entire hand while some christians/jews cut only a finger?

          Would you ever think of cutting your baby's lavia minora? How about your baby's eyelids? Why dont you cut those as well? Dont give me the bs about the "advantages" of circumcision. Those are a joke.
      • BoonTobias, on 05/18/2008, -3/+3take out 570 years then, and you're not seriously defending christians like that are you?
        they both suck ass
    • RapidDave, on 05/18/2008, -2/+1so true
    • mishabear, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1They want too control them so they can have them all to themselves!
  • friendlyman, on 05/18/2008, -5/+21Why won't anyone please think about the children? I mean children should never be exposed to breasts ever. In fact babies should all be bottled feed, that way we can preserve their minds from the obscenity of breasts. Breasts.
  • LeeSoong, on 05/18/2008, -15/+1The new Starbucks coffee is weak and watered down.

    1 cup of it was enough to make me never visit their store again.

    In response to this protest about the logo,
    StarBucks should change the 'B' in their name to an 'F'.
  • yourbrokenoven, on 05/18/2008, -5/+4this new logo actually looks better than the old. bare breasts? psh, please. the nipples are covered by hair, so that makes it ok, right?
  • liuite, on 05/18/2008, -5/+9there is no such thing as a mermaid, so how can it be fornification? oh, i forgot...some christians think it is wrong to expose man-boobs
  • DillonHinson, on 05/18/2008, -1/+6This is old news. But anyways, I honestly don't care about their logo change. Yeah, I can see why it may be offensive to some, but most people don't pay attention to those little things, especially since it's not a real noticable change. There is also a little bit of history in the Starbucks mermaid, so honoring their past is a respectable thing.
  • theOster, on 05/18/2008, -23/+3it depicts parts of the human body that, practical as they may be, are wrong.
    • RyanCoke, on 05/18/2008, -0/+8It almost sounds like you lost a debate to a pair of breasts.
  • brkhobowriter, on 05/18/2008, -7/+19OGC
    • noseeme, on 05/18/2008, -7/+7I took a picture of your comment, took it into my time machine, and went back in time three weeks. Upon looking at it, I ***** laughed my ass off!
      • ElbertF, on 05/18/2008, -2/+3You're trying way to hard.
      • Macrophallus, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0What is this OGC *****?
        • Zephik, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Forget that those are letters, pretend its a stick figure on his side. ;)

          It reminds me of LAO way back in the day. :P
    • canman888, on 05/18/2008, -0/+7I pity the fools who doesn't get the OGC reference :-)
    • J0415, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Fap fap fap.
  • rherlitz, on 05/18/2008, -8/+15As someone said, "I guess since we already took care of problems such as POVERTY, UNEMPLOYMENT, WAR, HIGH COST OF FOOD, etc...this is the right time to take care of little mermaid's breasts!".
    And we all know this is nothing compared to what's going on behind the closed doors of their churches (eg priests knocking up quireboys)
    • monroylobo, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2You should have left that last paragraph out...WTF is a quireboy?
      • methos75, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1And if they can knock up a "quireboy" they obivously hold so command of the natural orders that science does not.
    • crzdmn, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2The proper term isn't quire boy anymore, it's priest toy.
    • dixienormous101, on 05/18/2008, -2/+1buried for "quireboys" .... stupid ass.
    • Anonchrist, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2They knock up boys... You do know that term means to impregnate, right?
    • mishabear, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1you mean "choirboys"? and "knocked up" means to get them pregnant. LOL
  • Falldog, on 05/18/2008, -2/+55They should make sure to boycott Virginia as well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Seal_of_Virgini ...
    • blueskydiver76, on 05/18/2008, -1/+6Does that guy have a raging metal boner?
    • mrhaines, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4I don't get this seal at all? Is it a feminist flag with a woman warrior killing a man and cutting off his metal dick? Makes about as much sense as the South Park flag.
    • FuzzyTheDuck, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4Yea, and the statue of liberty. Lady liberty herself:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eug%C3%A8ne_Del ...
    • Galaeron, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1The Lady with her breast hanging out is Virtue and the guy laying on the ground defeated is Tyranny.

      And people have been complaining about the seal for awhile now but frankly us Virginia's don't give a ***** :)
  • Damien2101, on 05/18/2008, -5/+25This is Starbucks' old original logo that they changed many years ago to the current one you recognize today for this very reason: nutjobs thinking that it's offensive. Starbucks should just change their logo to tubgirl and photoshop a latte cup in her mouth, catching it. They're already on their way out anyway, may as well go down in flames. The now-returned old CEO is bringing them down with bad business moves even faster than the other guy did. Sad, really... I do like their coffee.
    • Gryffydd, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Dude, this is *not* the old original logo. Thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking about.
      http://dn.codegear.com/article/images/20717/starbu ...
      • Damien2101, on 05/30/2008, -0/+0Unfortunately for you, my GF works for Starbucks and verified it was. In fact, even in checking Wikipedia the brown mermaid logo is noted to be the "original logo" in a caption. So, I've got two reliable sources telling me otherwise. Feel free to somehow prove that it isn't, but, I think you might find some difficulty in doing so..

        Edit: What the hell, I'll even cite wikipedia here for you: "At the beginning of September 2006, Starbucks temporarily reintroduced its original brown logo on paper hot drink cups."

        Do I really need more?
  • burninthepyre, on 05/18/2008, -9/+6Buried for being retarded.
  • purzzzell, on 05/18/2008, -17/+2Not that it upsets or offends me in any way (as in, I don't care) - but at first glance it DOES look like a naked woman with her legs spread like a prostitute.
    • Starbuck1959, on 05/18/2008, -1/+7Only prostitutes spread their legs? We must all be children of prostitutes, then.
  • mikephimikephi, on 05/18/2008, -5/+17A national boycott huh? Well I guess America will be calling in sick on Monday, because there ain't no other way we can get through a day at work.
    • LowFuel, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2Yup, a stupid group of 3000 morons constitutes a national boycott and the front page of digg.
      • crzdmn, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1who's boycotting in this thread?????
  • philiras07, on 05/18/2008, -9/+32OH noes a boobie
    we must protect the kiddies!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 358 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.