In the news lately has been how McDonald’s has rolled over and played dead to pressure from (surely a narrow) segment of their customer base — people who either own a domesticated dog species “pit bull” or otherwise have a strange fixation on promoting a healthy image of them — after McDonald’s ran a radio advert comparing the act of trying something new as being less risky than trying to pet a stray pit bull, among other more-risky topics.
Okay first, all jokes aside about how pit bull owners are sloped-forehead retarded — the advert was not suggesting that stray pit bulls in general were risky (which they are), or that “food safety” was the topic.
A Sensible Interpretation of the Advert
The advert, above, was about the risk of trying something new.
Now, trying a new McDonald’s product is predictably REMARKABLY NOT RISKY. I think this should be fairly obvious, unless you have an aversion or allergy to an ingredient (in which case all food, McDonald’s or otherwise, could be suspect).
Now that the premise has been established that there is NO RISK from trying a new McDonald’s meal item, a list of other riskier activities is listed:
1. Petting a stray pit bull.
2. Shaving your head to see how it would look.
3. Naming your son “Sue”.
4. Giving your friends your Facebook password.
Given this scaling, with the level of risk for trying something new at McDonalds being ZERO, and giving your friends your Facebook password being 4, on a scale of 0 to 4, petting a stray pit bull is only rank number one — AND YET PIT BULL OWNERS ARE OUTRAGED!
Pit Bull Owners Outraged At The Ad Flunked Creative Writing
I would put petting a stray pit bull, on this scale, probably at number 2 at least. Naming your son Sue wouldn’t be terrible — since the trend has already been established. I had an old gent neighbor named Jan, and Ashley is a newly popular boy name, so Sue isn’t terribly far off, kids will tease any other kid about anything.
It is fairly unanimous and common knowledge, however, that petting stray animals is dangerous. The point is not specifically about pit bulls (whereby pit bulls are mentioned simply as an example) being dangerous, but that STRAY animals (in general) is risky.
The inclusion of “pit bull” is merely by example of a stray animal (out of all stray animals) risky to pet. The ad could just as easily have said petting a stray little mouse, or a stray bunny rabbit, or a stray dog of any other breed.
People who lack understanding about using style in writing would predictably flunk the reading comprehension portion if this were to appear on a standardized test.
Pit bulls being animals, petting stray pit bulls would be risky. The web is generally in agreement with the fact that petting stray animals is risky behavior. RISKY in this case, suggests that DANGER IS POSSIBLE but not necessarily that doing so is always dangerous.
A high RISK suggests that the confidence or ability to determine a dangerous situation from otherwise is difficult to immediately establish, that caution should be advised — with any animal. Strays present a situation of uncertainty, as to whether the animal, of any breed, has had proper immunizations, has been declawed, or isn’t injured, isn’t upset, has no parasites, hasn’t had proper nutrition and is madly hungry, or a whole host of other perfectly plausible issues with being stray. The emphasis of the example of pit bull is that it is STRAY and therefore RISKY about whether these variables are ideal for the safety of petting.
The problem with the visual portion of the above “alert” going out is the omission of the word “stray” and instead suggest that the advertisement instead claims petting “pit bulls” is risky. So essentially, pit bull enthusiasts are getting upset over an advertisement that was misquoted to them and they trusted that source enough to act out upon it without bothering to check out the facts first.
If you are a pit bull activist and checking things out first before you get crazy mad over nothing, to you I say: Bravo.
If you are a pit bull activist and got crazy over nothing before checking things out first, to you I say: You’re a dope.
In summary, Reasons People Are Upset About The Advert:
1. They can’t figure out the purpose of the ad.
2. They can’t understand how literary style offers “pit bull” as a random example of a stray animal that is risky to approach.
3. They’re unable to determine that the ad is actually, by comparison, calling the topic they’re upset out LESS RISKY than other fairly UNRISKY behaviors.
4. They’re dopes.