|
Just calmly ask him to explain how it has anything to do with freedom of speech. Maybe he actually thinks CFA had been banned somewhere, and you could explain that it is not, never has been, and never will be banned anywhere just because the owner doesn't like gays.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
There’s no record of discrimination at Chick-fil-A... except for the more than a dozen discrimination lawsuits filed against them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, let's try to ban a soup kitchen from opening its doors somewhere, it'll do wonders for volunteering!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Just calmly ask him to explain how it has anything to do with freedom of speech. Maybe he actually thinks CFA had been banned somewhere, and you could explain that it is not, never has been, and never will be banned anywhere just because the owner doesn't like gays. They're going to throw the mayor of Boston's letter at you if you do this, FYI. Maybe Rahm Emmanuel too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
Emron posted:They're going to throw the mayor of Boston's letter at you if you do this, FYI. Maybe Rahm Emmanuel too. Which they should, because those two pretty much threatened to obstruct them based on First Amendment protected right to free speech. If Chick-Fil-A legitimately breaks discrimination laws in business practices it should be held to account for that, and not for something it's CEO said. I wouldn't be comfortable with another governor refusing to let a company open shop because they support gay marriage or even threatening such action. They've since backed down and I don't at all think that Chick-Fil-A is in need of white knights to defend their rights, but it's a pretty clear cut instance of Constitutionally protected rights and members of government making stupid statements.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
Edit: NVM
Dr Christmas fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Aug 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Which they should, because those two pretty much threatened to obstruct them based on First Amendment protected right to free speech. If Chick-Fil-A legitimately breaks discrimination laws in business practices it should be held to account for that, and not for something it's CEO said. I wouldn't be comfortable with another governor refusing to let a company open shop because they support gay marriage or even threatening such action. No, I definitely agree. Just telling him or her what would happen if they tried that argument. Really, talking about free speech is letting them reframe the debate. If it really were about free speech, then the same people would have been upset about THE GROUND ZERO MOSQUE. They're just cloaking oppression in freedom of speech so they can feel persecuted and validated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
Emron posted:No, I definitely agree. Just telling him or her what would happen if they tried that argument. Really, talking about free speech is letting them reframe the debate. If it really were about free speech, then the same people would have been upset about THE GROUND ZERO MOSQUE. They're just cloaking oppression in freedom of speech so they can feel persecuted and validated. Oh definitely. In fact, this would be a great time to bring up the "ground zero" mosque and see if you can't convince some people that instead of only defending rights when they're expressed in agreement with them that people should defend the rights of everybody regardless of the views those people hold. Maybe you'll find some individuals who actually recognize they're being jerks and not actually standing on principle and change their ways. I can hope right? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Oh definitely. In fact, this would be a great time to bring up the "ground zero" mosque and see if you can't convince some people that instead of only defending rights when they're expressed in agreement with them that people should defend the rights of everybody regardless of the views those people hold. Maybe you'll find some individuals who actually recognize they're being jerks and not actually standing on principle and change their ways. I hate to dash your hopes. I was trying to make just that argument, towards the end of this conversation 
TotalLossBrain fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Aug 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
The food banks and homeless shelter one bugs me. Less so than the fucks that actually think the buycott was a good idea, but it still does. No, dumbass, Jesus did not tell people to volunteer at food banks and homeless shelters. He told them to sell all their possessions and give it all to the poor. It really bugs me because it's deliberately twisting his words around to not offend middle class suburbanites. Of course I'm not much better, I like replying to it by just posting "Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty." in the comments.  It's James 5 for those wondering.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 03:31
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:The food banks and homeless shelter one bugs me. Less so than the fucks that actually think the buycott was a good idea, but it still does. "For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'" With the interpretation that the teaching is about actually doing those things, not giving money to someone else to do them for you. Not saying I necessarily agree with the interpretation, but I think that's the context they're coming from.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
Yeah, but that interpretation directly ignores the earlier context about selling your possessions which is Matthew 19, 6 chapters earlier, and to boot is also in Mark 10. If they were from two separate gospels I could buy that, but it's directly ignoring what was said earlier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
"I don't have an issue with gay people, I just don't agree with their lifestyle" is the biggest load of horseshit ever. I don't have an issue with black people, I just don't agree with their skin color. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
oh, you're Bored, are you, fb user #8? I thought you were just losing the argument, but this will not do! I'm sure gay people are BORED of having their rights trampled but clearly fb user #8 must be entertained. Sorry everyone, we'll drop it immediately.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 04:00
|
|
The Rokstar posted:"I don't have an issue with gay people, I just don't agree with their lifestyle" is the biggest load of horseshit ever. I don't have an issue with black people, I just don't agree with their skin color. When a guy asked on Facebook, "I don't have anything against gays, I just don't think they should be able to get married, does that make me a homophobe?" I just said, "yeah." They don't want to think of themselves as bigots, but there ya go.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Guys, I did something horrible  I made an Impact font "meme," insofar as something that hasn't been posted anywhere can be a meme.  Well, at least I can comfort myself in the knowledge that making these things is no longer the lowest form of activism  .
Dr Christmas fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Aug 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
If buying fast food to support a moral cause isn't the definition of decadence then I don't know what is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 08:13
|
|
|
Think about everything the people marching for civil rights in the 60's went through. Now look at the fat old white people in line at Chick-Fil-A. Truly, these are two equally epic struggles for the American way of life. Bonus: this article quote:These perverse cries of oppression spoiled what could have been a universally respected—if not supported—exercise of first amendment rights and the power of one's own purse. Demonizing boycotts as a tool has a far more chilling effect on speech than boycotts themselves do, because it removes one of the few powerful amplifiers for the voices of the powerless. Most businesses have the luxury of adaptation; average citizens are prisoners of the limited products available to them that they can afford. Doubtless both sides of the political fence would approve of a boycott if the next Apple ad featured, "The Revolutionary New iPad: DEATH TO ISRAEL," and many Christians had no problems with boycotts against JC Penney and Oreo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 08:31
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Ben Franklin was the Lou Dobbs of his era.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 08:43
|
|
|
The Rokstar posted:"I don't have an issue with gay people, I just don't agree with their lifestyle" is the biggest load of horseshit ever. I don't have an issue with black people, I just don't agree with their skin color. It functions upon the false premise that hatred is only expressed when you directly say means things, as exemplified by racial slurs. These people think Dan Cathy isn't being hateful towards gays because he doesn't call them evil or use words like "fag" or "dyke," he's simply "supporting traditional marriage." Saying you think homosexuality is "wrong" or that gays shouldn't be able to get married or whatever stupid things these bigots like to say to make their disgusting beliefs palatable is still hateful. It's still expressing the idea that gays don't deserve equal rights, which is inherently hateful. This is also why I think there's another lead buried in Chick-fil-A's homophobia, they're also expressing inherently sexist views towards gender roles. Just look at these repeated lawsuits about sexual harassment and gender discrimination among Chick-fil-A's employees. It's expressed in this pseudo-kind paternalism that these women should be at home with their children at all times, not working and certainly not in positions of authority like management. It's not some directly confrontational misogyny like MRA bullshit, but it's still this passive bigotry towards women. Chick-fil-A supporters keep on trying to defend the company by saying that these are the problems of franchisees, not Chick-fil-A as a company, but it's pretty obvious that Chick-fil-A is choosing franchisees based on a similarity to the beliefs of its executives and their overall corporate culture. Guilty Spork posted:Someone posted a picture of a huge line outside Chick-Fil-A that's making rounds with the caption: I really love how this encapsulates the way people rationalize conflicts with their beliefs so that they don't have to acknowledge they're wrong and change their beliefs and/or behaviors. "All these polls showing that Obama is still relatively popular and a (growing) majority of Americans support gay marriage don't match with my beliefs that he's the worst president ever and gay marriage is evil and unpopular, so it must be that the polls are biased and unsound. I'll trust a really long line of people outside a Chick-fil-A that I can see with my eyes over your stupid 'survey methodology' and 'statistics.'" This is the same twisted logic behind creationism/Intelligent Design, global warming denialism, vaccine scaremongering, and other anti-science beliefs. The actual science is denied and obfuscated while emotionally tangible and salient "evidence" is given paramount importance, e.g. a little kid with autism, snow outside an idiot's window, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 11:38
|
|
|
prom candy posted:Holy poo poo, let's try to ban a soup kitchen from opening its doors somewhere, it'll do wonders for volunteering! No it won't...this chik fil a thing is just the right wing-only version of activism-through-consumption. Actually volunteering is hard...graduating to your next belt notch is not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 14:34
|
|
|
Miscellaneous_T posted:"Jesus is a false prophet because the letter J had not yet been conceived." This person needs to inform him/herself about his/her own religion. Islam sees Jesus as a prophet, just not the prophet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 14:37
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:This person needs to inform him/herself about his/her own religion. Islam sees Jesus as a prophet, just not the prophet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 14:41
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:He thinks Islam came before Christianity. Let that sink in for just a minute. Oh. I don't think my brain is equipped to deal with that kind of stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:He thinks Islam came before Christianity. Let that sink in for just a minute. I rather like how he thinks the Latin alphabet matters to a religion whose holy book is written in Arabic. For that matter, weren't the Christian Gospels originally written in Greek?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
Why are people that agree with CFA not 100% agreeing with a boycott? I dont mean boycotting themselves, obviously, but agreeing that a boycott is the optimal solution. All they go on about is how the free market should fix everything. Well this is a prime example right? People voting with their dollars. Of course as with everything with them, the only moral boycott is my boycott.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:For that matter, weren't the Christian Gospels originally written in Greek? myron cope posted:Why are people that agree with CFA not 100% agreeing with a boycott? I dont mean boycotting themselves, obviously, but agreeing that a boycott is the optimal solution. All they go on about is how the free market should fix everything. Well this is a prime example right? People voting with their dollars. Guilty Spork fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Aug 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:I rather like how he thinks the Latin alphabet matters to a religion whose holy book is written in Arabic. Indeed they were. Also, it's possible that the author is taking the view that Islam is truth, and where there is truth, there is Islam (no matter what time in history). I've heard this view before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Of course as with everything with them, the only moral boycott is my boycott. Their view is actually worse: the only legal boycott is my boycott.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Their view is actually worse: the only legal boycott is my boycott. It's a special pleading double standard, plain and simple. Boycotting JCPenny because it had a Father's Day ad featuring a gay couple with their children and because Ellen DeGeneres is their spokeswoman are worthy uses of boycotts, but doing so against Chick-Fil-A for funding anti-gay organizations is an affront to liberty and the First Amendment. skaboomizzy posted:Think about everything the people marching for civil rights in the 60's went through. I just read this article and it made me think of the Occupy movement. It's funny how all these arch-conservative pundits, politicians, talking heads, etc. were denouncing Occupy in various fashions (e.g. "Soros astroturf!," "just a bunch of unemployed, druggie losers with nothing else to do," "") with the similar core message that it wasn't a legitimate protest movement, but somehow a bunch of fat people sitting in their cars while they wait to order drive-thru fast food is somehow a vibrant populist movement to support freedom and justice. These assholes are freaking out because a couple of mayors said stupid poo poo about Chick-fil-A, so can you imagine how these idiots would react if they got 1% of the lovely treatment the Occupy movement has received, like hosing people down with pepper spray like its a wet t-shirt contest? This really shows the disconnect caused by privilege.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:It's a special pleading double standard, plain and simple. Boycotting JCPenny because it had a Father's Day ad featuring a gay couple with their children and because Ellen DeGeneres is their spokeswoman are worthy uses of boycotts, but doing so against Chick-Fil-A for funding anti-gay organizations is an affront to liberty and the First Amendment. God, I just want someone to sit someone down in front of a camera and ask, "Why is your boycott good and ours bad?" Anyway, in case you were looking to fill some anger quota, here's some shithead on Fox comparing Chick-Fil-A to OWS people "who maim and rape." http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/fox-news-contributor-chick-fil-supporters-do Hard to believe, but a small minority of the Tea Party was actually mad at the banks and supported OWS. I wonder if they would have been incorporated more into the OWS nattative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
I really really want to win the lotto so the next time gay marriage is on any state ballot, I can buy a few thousand signs. Say the prop is Prop 200 and it defines marriage between one man and one woman. The signs would read: VOTE NO ON PROP 200, BAN DIVORCE! Or: WHAT GOD HAS JOINED LET NO MAN PART. BAN DIVORCE, VOTE NO ON PROP 200. PROP 200: VOTE YES TO FUND BABYKILLERS. PROP 200: DIVORCE IS IMMORAL And so on and so on. If marriage is so loving sacred, why do we allow divorce? Even if your husband beats you or your wife cheats on you, you are hosed, buddy, because marriage is sacred and you can't get out!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
I've found this to be one of the better responses to the whole CFA debacle: http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
Another Chik-Fil-A one that got ugly fast, from my wife's facebook:
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:If buying fast food to support a moral cause isn't the definition of decadence then I don't know what is. Not to support a moral cause but to counter a boycott by gay people who think CFA is being homophobic. It's literally an anti-protest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
Whenever someone brings up the idea that a flat tax is somehow a fair tax, basically all you need to do is scream LAW OF DIMINISHING MARGINAL UTILITY at them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Whenever someone brings up the idea that a flat tax is somehow a fair tax, basically all you need to do is scream LAW OF DIMINISHING MARGINAL UTILITY at them. Oh my, how wrong you are my friend! If we taxed based on marginal utility, the tax rate would actually be FLATTER! It's always fun when people basically announce that they are unabashedly social darwinists. 
forbidden dialectics fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Aug 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
I browse quite a few car forums and tonight I am looking at higher-end sports car forums. For those unaware, car forums are at a base line right wing, but the more expensive the car.. Oh boy, hold on to your hats folks! http://forums.corvetteforum.com/politics-religion-and-controversy/3104884-what-changes-will-you-make-if-obama-is-re-elected.html The best posts are a guy complaining about his taxes are too high because he makes $250k a year, followed by someone saying he will just stop working and go on welfare if Obama gets elected. Let me know how that works out for you, you bunch of blow-hards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
Nothing, and I mean nothing, beats the forums of the Gun Community in terms of pure madness - where I once got into a discussion in which a guy stated that his opinion of the 2nd Amendment should allow ordinary citizens to buy nuclear weapons.
Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Aug 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 06:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
ultimateforce posted:I browse quite a few car forums and tonight I am looking at higher-end sports car forums. For those unaware, car forums are at a base line right wing, but the more expensive the car.. Oh boy, hold on to your hats folks! That thread is so precious. Someone whose household income is $250K seriously said he and his wife would work less to avoid paying more taxes. He clearly doesn't know that $250K is taxable income, meaning after all deductions are taken. Real income for $250K taxable can be at least $300K, since people who really make that income have easy access to CPAs that will inform them of all the deductions and credits they're entitled to by law. It must be fun to get on the internet and blatantly lie about how much money you make. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2012 06:40
|
|