http://gizmodo.com/5928926/chick+fil+a-got-caught-pretending-to-be-a-fake-teenage-girl-on-facebook
QuoteChick-fil-A, home of chicken-loving bigots, is in the middle of a PR nightmare. After Chick-fil-A's COO admitted to being anti-gay, the Jim Henson Company (bless their heart) pulled their toys from Chick-fil-A's kids meals. Only Chick-fil-A claimed the toys were pulled because of a "possible safety issue". That, of course, is a complete lie. A lie that the company may be propagating with fake Facebook accounts of Chick-fil-a sympathists.
Yep, Chick-fil-A is still stuck in its own reality and is doubling down on its lie. Instead of owning up to the fact that The Jim Henson Company stopped doing business with them because they're overrun with bigots, the chicken sandwich company appears to have made fake Facebook accounts to defend its honor on the social network. How do we know the accounts are fake? Just check out this back and forth on Chick-fil-A's Facebook page between real, breathing people and "Abby Farle", a Facebook account that was made 8 hours ago by a chicken PR flack with a stock image of a teenage girl as her profile picture:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.gawkerassets.com%2Fimg%2F17tx3ftc9xl5ujpg%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=1b5779638b93ac5089a7d6519a8c118621e8c137)
It's a dirty, awful trick that is completely embarrassing and just shows how sleazy a company backed up against a wall can be. Especially a company that doesn't believe in treating all humans equally. Of course, there's a chance that this could all be a stunt to shame Chick-fil-A—or an overzealous supporter—but that company hardly needs more shaming. Chick-fil-A is being rightfully pummeled to the ground by anyone who believes in equality, its delicious chicken sandwiches be damned.
How...odd.
The boycott is getting ridiculous. I don't see how the mayor of a city can tell a restaurant he will deny it a permit because he doesn't like their beliefs.
So we're piling on these guys for using the sorts of marketing tricks that big companies use all the time?
Quote from: Faeelin on July 25, 2012, 01:33:09 PM
The boycott is getting ridiculous. I don't see how the mayor of a city can tell a restaurant he will deny it a permit because he doesn't like their beliefs.
Agreed. Only if they were shown to be acting on discriminatory beliefs in their stores would it seem like Menino would have a leg to stand on.
Quote from: Neil on July 25, 2012, 01:36:49 PM
So we're piling on these guys for using the sorts of marketing tricks that big companies use all the time?
Who was it who posted something recently about "don't get caught"? Weak/poorly done underhanded tactics shame all of us. -_-
Quote from: Neil on July 25, 2012, 01:36:49 PM
So we're piling on these guys for using the sorts of marketing tricks that big companies use all the time?
It is a bit humorous for a company that's all about Biblical principles to lie while quoting the Bible.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 25, 2012, 01:47:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 25, 2012, 01:36:49 PM
So we're piling on these guys for using the sorts of marketing tricks that big companies use all the time?
It is a bit humorous for a company that's all about Biblical principles to lie while quoting the Bible.
On that, what relevance does John 3:16 even have to that? :hmm:
LOL.
That is funny. I for one will certainly not eat at Chik-fil-A.
Of course, that is because the nearest one is several hours away. I cannot resist those delicious nuggets! So tasty!
The one and only Chick-fil-A I've encountered is at the student union at the university here. I tried them once. The chicken was dry and tasteless and the fries were mealy. I'll pass.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 01:55:25 PM
On that, what relevance does John 3:16 even have to that? :hmm:
I was wondering the same thing.
God so loved the world that he sacrificed Jesus...so therefore Chick-fil-A loves muppets?
Wait, how do we know this is a PR guy? Couldn't it just be a child molester? I laughed at the idea of Chick-fil-a sympathizers.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.gawkerassets.com%2Fimg%2F17ttc481xe8sbjpg%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=c1c87e1500cc4fbed49afd7d7b3e09d2503c9414)
The pictures look like two different people to me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 02:03:17 PM
The pictures look like two different people to me.
Yes. One is a cow and the other is Jon Stewart.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 02:05:14 PM
Yes. One is a cow and the other is Jon Stewart.
I'll pretend to laugh at your joke if you give me 1,000 zlotys.
Who ever blocked out the names, didn't do a very good job. Possibly Melody May.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 02:07:09 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 02:05:14 PM
Yes. One is a cow and the other is Jon Stewart.
I'll pretend to laugh at your joke if you give me 1,000 zlotys.
You should be able to find that in your ashtray or couch cushions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 02:03:17 PM
The pictures look like two different people to me.
They are but the girl in yellow shows up in the Similar Images on that page. Not sure why someone posted her pic too.
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-3117967/stock-photo-pretty-redhead-teenager-isolated-on-white-smiling.html
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 02:07:09 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 02:05:14 PM
Yes. One is a cow and the other is Jon Stewart.
I'll pretend to laugh at your joke if you give me 1,000 zlotys.
You would need to be cute and in your 20s. Sorry.
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 02:27:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 02:07:09 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 02:05:14 PM
Yes. One is a cow and the other is Jon Stewart.
I'll pretend to laugh at your joke if you give me 1,000 zlotys.
You would need to be cute and in your 20s. Sorry.
That'd be insufficient payment then.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 02:31:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 02:27:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 02:07:09 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 02:05:14 PM
Yes. One is a cow and the other is Jon Stewart.
I'll pretend to laugh at your joke if you give me 1,000 zlotys.
You would need to be cute and in your 20s. Sorry.
That'd be insufficient payment then.
We're having a recession.
What's the going rate for pretending to be a cute 20 something who laughs at your jokes on the internet?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 25, 2012, 02:44:43 PM
What's the going rate for pretending to be a cute 20 something who laughs at your jokes on the internet?
I can send you a picture of a 100 zloty note.
What kind of company doesn't have squads of sleeper accounts on FB? Amateurs.
Quote from: The Brain on July 25, 2012, 02:57:34 PM
What kind of company doesn't have squads of sleeper accounts on FB? Amateurs.
One run by bible-thumping right wingers. These types are woefully oblivious to the workings of modern world. Comes with the territory.
Facebook isn't relelvant.
I had one of their chicken salad sandwiches today, and laughed at faggots while I ate it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2012, 06:58:34 PM
I had one of their chicken salad sandwiches today, and laughed at faggots while I ate it.
:)
I can't wait until I get back and just eat a nugget platter.
If I hadn't eaten already, I'd go get some strips now. :mmm:
There are two Chick-fil-As within my normal commute so I tend to eat their crap fairly regularly, maybe a few times a month when I'm feeling lazy. It's replaced Taco Bell and Arby's as my lazy get-fat food.
Fuckin' Taco Bell and Arby's are so far out of the way, goddammit. :mad:
WTF funk, if i was in SAT i'd be eating tacos not fucking Chick-fil-A
Muchas Gracias (http://muchasgraciasmexicanrestaurant.com/) is my new go-to fast food place. Sooo good and open 24/7.
I cant eat tacos every day ffffucck
They closed the Arby's near me and are converting it to Popeye's. There already was a Popeye's, I just had to drive a little farther. Now there's no Arby's. That used to be the least-unhealthy lazy food.
I NEVER end up living or working near a fucking Taco Bell. :weep:
For a while they were talking about putting in a combination KFC/Taco Bell in my town (got wind of it from my mother in law who used to work at Yum! corporate) but ultimately Yum! passed on the property, and we got a McDonalds instead. Just what we needed... it's right next store to a Dairy Queen, which is another burger joint. Why do we need so many fucking burger joints!? THERE ARE OTHER THINGS IN THE WORLD TO EAT THAN HAMBURGERS PEOPLE. :bleeding:
Oh btw, to give you an idea of what a big deal this would have been... my county has a grand total of nine restaurants, not counting gas station cafes.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 25, 2012, 09:27:12 PM
They closed the Arby's near me and are converting it to Popeye's. There already was a Popeye's, I just had to drive a little farther. Now there's no Arby's. That used to be the least-unhealthy lazy food.
Anchorage's one and only Popeye's is across the street from one of seven Arbys we have....who knew Arbys was so popular here.
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2012, 09:27:45 PM
I NEVER end up living or working near a fucking Taco Bell. :weep:
That is a good thing you dumbass.
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2012, 09:27:45 PM
it's right next store to a Dairy Queen, which is another burger joint.
I don't think I've ever gotten hot food at DQ. :hmm:
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 09:29:26 PM
That is a good thing you dumbass.
If I ever try to get a job at Yum! corporat HQ I'm gonna tell them they can pay me in chalupas. :)
Actually there's this super popular burger joint literally right outside my apartment complex. I could walk there in a few minutes.
Come to think of it, I've never actually eaten anything from there yet... :hmm:
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 09:29:26 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2012, 09:27:45 PM
I NEVER end up living or working near a fucking Taco Bell. :weep:
That is a good thing you dumbass.
I don't think I'm ever going to eat at a Taco Bell again. I can't believe I stuck with it for so long.
I went to Del Taco for the first time on Sunday. Better than Taco Bell, but inferior to what we already had.
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 09:26:41 PM
Muchas Gracias (http://muchasgraciasmexicanrestaurant.com/) is my new go-to fast food place. Sooo good and open 24/7.
Aside from the music, that's a really well-done website.
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2012, 09:32:00 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 09:29:26 PM
That is a good thing you dumbass.
If I ever try to get a job at Yum! corporat HQ I'm gonna tell them they can pay me in chalupas. :)
Only reason to eat at Taco bell is because you are constipated.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 25, 2012, 09:31:05 PM
I don't think I've ever gotten hot food at DQ. :hmm:
Yeah, all of the DQs here are 'Grill and Chill' units. When I was a kid all of the DQs in Pa. were ice cream only.
Their hot food is fairly mediocre, except for the chicken strip baskets. They used to have chicken fried steak that was surprisingly good but they discontinued it.
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 09:33:27 PM
Only reason to eat at Taco bell is because you are constipated.
Homemade tacos are so much better. Still, sometimes I'm feeling lazy. :sleep:
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 09:33:27 PM
Only reason to eat at Taco bell is because you are drunk and it's 3AM and you have nowhere else to go.
There has to be some better alternative than Taco Bell near you though?
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 25, 2012, 09:36:00 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 09:33:27 PM
Only reason to eat at Taco bell is because you are drunk and it's 3AM and you have nowhere else to go.
I've got better places open that late here and I'm in Alaska pinche pendejo Funk.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 25, 2012, 09:32:23 PM
I don't think I'm ever going to eat at a Taco Bell again. I can't believe I stuck with it for so long.
I went to Del Taco for the first time on Sunday. Better than Taco Bell, but inferior to what we already had.
Before you guys start lecturing me on this shit (yes kat, I know, you're an expert on Mexican crap) I agree in advance that Qdoba, Chipotle, etc. are better. But for some reason I like the damn chalupas, so sue me. I also know that it's not real Mexican food as a) I've been to Mexico and eaten at Mexican restautarants, and not ones that cater to tourists, b) we actually have a handful of authentic Mexican restaurants here I patronize as often as I can, meaning when I'm in those neighborhoods. Puerco pibil and mole poblano = :punk:
One thing to note is that by boycotting the neighborhood Chick-Fil-A, you are hurting the local franchisee, who may not be a hater and in fact totally innocent.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 25, 2012, 09:37:54 PM
One thing to note is that by boycotting the neighborhood Chick-Fil-A, you are hurting the local franchisee, who may not be a hater and in fact totally innocent.
I kind of assume their typical franchisee is also a religious nut. Close on Sunday and flush 1/7 of my potential profits down the toilet? SOUNDS LIKE AN OSSUM IDEA.
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 09:36:12 PM
There has to be some better alternative than Taco Bell near you though?
Yes (http://www.tacocabana.com/) there (http://www.tacobueno.com/) are (http://freebirds.com/)
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 09:36:42 PM
I've got better places open that late here and I'm in Alaska pinche pendejo Funk.
Fair enough. McDonald's fries work for me in those instances as well. That Mickey Ds outside Savannah on the intersection of I-95/I-16 was a godsend.
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2012, 09:37:38 PM
Before you guys start lecturing me on this shit (yes kat, I know, you're an expert on Mexican crap) I agree in advance that Qdoba, Chipotle, etc. are better. But for some reason I like the damn chalupas, so sue me. I also know that it's not real Mexican food as a) I've been to Mexico and eaten at Mexican restautarants, and not ones that cater to tourists, b) we actually have a handful of authentic Mexican restaurants here I patronize as often as I can, meaning when I'm in those neighborhoods. Puerco pibil and mole poblano = :punk:
I'm not trying to lecture you on the "mexicaness" (sp?) of Taco Bell, I'm talking about Taco Bell making me physically ill if try to eat there :P
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 25, 2012, 09:40:03 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 09:36:12 PM
There has to be some better alternative than Taco Bell near you though?
Yes (http://"http://www.tacocabana.com/") there (http://"http://www.tacobueno.com/") are (http://"http://freebirds.com/")
None of those links work for me, and I was asking ET who is in Georgia not some Dallasian! :P
@kat Happens to me sometimes too. It's hit or miss. :hmm:
You know where I *always* get ill from eating at? PF Chang's.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 25, 2012, 09:40:03 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 09:36:12 PM
There has to be some better alternative than Taco Bell near you though?
Yes (http://"http://www.tacocabana.com/")
TACO CABANA :w00t:
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 09:42:02 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 25, 2012, 09:40:03 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 09:36:12 PM
There has to be some better alternative than Taco Bell near you though?
Yes (http://www.tacocabana.com/) there (http://www.tacobueno.com/) are (http://freebirds.com/)
None of those links work for me, and I was asking ET who is in Georgia not some Dallasian! :P
PEBKAC, and I thought you were talking to FM. :P
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2012, 09:39:11 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 25, 2012, 09:37:54 PM
One thing to note is that by boycotting the neighborhood Chick-Fil-A, you are hurting the local franchisee, who may not be a hater and in fact totally innocent.
I kind of assume their typical franchisee is also a religious nut. Close on Sunday and flush 1/7 of my potential profits down the toilet? SOUNDS LIKE AN OSSUM IDEA.
I doubt they're losing 1/7 of their profits. For one, people are less likely to get fast food on Sunday. Also, people who don't get Chick-fil-A Sunday are more likely to crave it on Monday.
@Katmai- dunno. I only go to Taco Bell like once or twice a year anyway.
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2012, 09:42:07 PM
@kat Happens to me sometimes too. It's hit or miss. :hmm:
It has happened the last three times (granted that many visits is spread out over last 3 years :P) I've woken up in middle of night sick. I use to enjoy eating there for similar reason Funk mentioned (well I was working job in graveyard shift and only option for hot food at 2am was the Taco Bell 2 blocks away)
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 25, 2012, 09:44:50 PM
PEBKAC, and I thought you were talking to FM. :P
Oh I know the quality of Taco Joints in San Antonio, my dad keeps telling me about them all and bitching about cost of tacos here compared to down there :lol:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 25, 2012, 09:37:54 PM
One thing to note is that by boycotting the neighborhood Chick-Fil-A, you are hurting the local franchisee, who may not be a hater and in fact totally innocent.
I don't care I'm boycotting my local one.....granted my local one seems to be in Sacramento area :P
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 09:28:56 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 25, 2012, 09:27:12 PM
They closed the Arby's near me and are converting it to Popeye's. There already was a Popeye's, I just had to drive a little farther. Now there's no Arby's. That used to be the least-unhealthy lazy food.
Anchorage's one and only Popeye's is across the street from one of seven Arbys we have....who knew Arbys was so popular here.
Why the fuck would anyone there go to Popeye's when you got the Lucky Wishbone?
I have no idea, i don't go there :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 25, 2012, 09:33:05 PM
Quote from: sbr on July 25, 2012, 09:26:41 PM
Muchas Gracias (http://muchasgraciasmexicanrestaurant.com/) is my new go-to fast food place. Sooo good and open 24/7.
Aside from the music, that's a really well-done website.
:D I didn't have my headphones on and didn't realize there was music.
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 09:50:24 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 25, 2012, 09:37:54 PM
One thing to note is that by boycotting the neighborhood Chick-Fil-A, you are hurting the local franchisee, who may not be a hater and in fact totally innocent.
I don't care I'm boycotting my local one.....granted my local one seems to be in Sacramento area :P
The one in Boise is closer to me but there is no way I would go to Boise for anything, much less a chicken sammich.
Chik-fil-A are not really franchises, btw.
They local "owner-operator" is a employee of Chik-fil-A, and does not own the store really at all.
I have noticed that throughout the Baltimore metro area--and this is anecdotal, mind you, simply from my experiences in fast food, which is legion--is that the Chik-fil-As aren't nearly as...well...as diverse as other fast food restaurants.
I mean, the Hunt Valley Chik-fil-A I went to today, the girls in the back looked like the Towson University JV cheerleading squad. The Burger King down the block? Straight outta Greenmount and E. 25th Street, yo. Same with the Mickey D's Steak House next door.
I've noticed that about all the Chik-fil-As around here.
Veddy interestink. :hmm:
There are a Taco Bell, an Arby's, and a Chik-fil-A all outside the mall I work at. Guess which one I never eat at? Fuck their politics, that shit's overpriced for what you get. The only one of their sandwiches I like is the spicy chicken sandwich, and I can get 2 gorditas, a soft taco, and a big-ass soda for less than the cost of the sandwich, all on its lonesome. Also, half the county seems to be in that Chik-fil-A at any given time- I'm no Mono; I like my elbow room when I eat, dammit. :angry:
Quote from: Caliga on July 25, 2012, 09:37:38 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 25, 2012, 09:32:23 PM
I don't think I'm ever going to eat at a Taco Bell again. I can't believe I stuck with it for so long.
I went to Del Taco for the first time on Sunday. Better than Taco Bell, but inferior to what we already had.
Before you guys start lecturing me on this shit (yes kat, I know, you're an expert on Mexican crap) I agree in advance that Qdoba, Chipotle, etc. are better. But for some reason I like the damn chalupas, so sue me. I also know that it's not real Mexican food as a) I've been to Mexico and eaten at Mexican restautarants, and not ones that cater to tourists, b) we actually have a handful of authentic Mexican restaurants here I patronize as often as I can, meaning when I'm in those neighborhoods. Puerco pibil and mole poblano = :punk:
Qdoba and Chipotle are the equivalent of shit so that doesn't say anything.
Also Californian Mexican/Tex-Mex is better than anything Mexico produced on its own.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2012, 06:58:34 PM
I had one of their chicken salad sandwiches today, and laughed at faggots while I ate it.
Oh seriously, you're going to try and get away with laughing at me behind my back?
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:24:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2012, 06:58:34 PM
I had one of their chicken salad sandwiches today, and laughed at faggots while I ate it.
Oh seriously, you're going to try and get away with laughing at me behind my back?
I would never laugh at you behind your back. You cut faces.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:23:14 PM
Also Californian Mexican/Tex-Mex is better than anything Mexico produced on its own.
:mellow:
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 11:26:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:23:14 PM
Also Californian Mexican/Tex-Mex is better than anything Mexico produced on its own.
:mellow:
Pretty sure you tried to talk about the best Chinese food being had in Tijuana so I'm thinking no to whatever you have to say.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2012, 10:52:00 PM
I have noticed that throughout the Baltimore metro area--and this is anecdotal, mind you, simply from my experiences in fast food, which is legion--is that the Chik-fil-As aren't nearly as...well...as diverse as other fast food restaurants.
I mean, the Hunt Valley Chik-fil-A I went to today, the girls in the back looked like the Towson University JV cheerleading squad. The Burger King down the block? Straight outta Greenmount and E. 25th Street, yo. Same with the Mickey D's Steak House next door.
I've noticed that about all the Chik-fil-As around here.
Veddy interestink. :hmm:
I grabbed launch at a Chick-Fil-A in Columbia today. Only one white kid working the counter that I recall.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2012, 11:26:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:24:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2012, 06:58:34 PM
I had one of their chicken salad sandwiches today, and laughed at faggots while I ate it.
Oh seriously, you're going to try and get away with laughing at me behind my back?
I would never laugh at you behind your back. You cut faces.
Respect.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 25, 2012, 11:29:49 PM
I grabbed launch at a Chick-Fil-A in Columbia today. Only one white kid working the counter that I saw.
You're in Columbia, dude. It's not Little Kingston for nothing.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:28:23 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 11:26:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:23:14 PM
Also Californian Mexican/Tex-Mex is better than anything Mexico produced on its own.
:mellow:
Pretty sure you tried to talk about the best Chinese food being had in Tijuana so I'm thinking no to whatever you have to say.
No i didn't say best Chinese food being in TJ, was making point that there is a sizable Chinese community in Baja California, i'm not making asinine comments like you have though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2012, 11:31:39 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 25, 2012, 11:29:49 PM
I grabbed launch at a Chick-Fil-A in Columbia today. Only one white kid working the counter that I saw.
You're in Columbia, dude. It's not Little Kingston for nothing.
I've only noticed such a predominance in one neighborhood of town so far. :sleep:
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 25, 2012, 11:36:59 PM
I've only noticed such a predominance in one neighborhood of town so far. :sleep:
That's because they mostly come out at night. Mostly.
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 11:33:58 PM
i'm not making asinine comments like you have though.
Ain't making none. What Americans have done to Mexican food is lovely. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2012, 10:52:00 PM
I have noticed that throughout the Baltimore metro area--and this is anecdotal, mind you, simply from my experiences in fast food, which is legion--is that the Chik-fil-As aren't nearly as...well...as diverse as other fast food restaurants.
I mean, the Hunt Valley Chik-fil-A I went to today, the girls in the back looked like the Towson University JV cheerleading squad. The Burger King down the block? Straight outta Greenmount and E. 25th Street, yo. Same with the Mickey D's Steak House next door.
I've noticed that about all the Chik-fil-As around here.
Veddy interestink. :hmm:
I can corroborate.
An all white fast food joint? In Columbia? Yeah, that's just how it all shook out, I'm sure.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:41:53 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 11:33:58 PM
i'm not making asinine comments like you have though.
Ain't making none. What Americans have done to Mexican food is lovely. :)
You are delusional which was made quite clear with the Pomona love.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:41:53 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 11:33:58 PM
i'm not making asinine comments like you have though.
Ain't making none. What Americans have done to Mexican food is lovely. :)
True dat, my mocha non-traditional male friend. Tex Mex has developed into its own genre, and it's the best of both worlds.
Wait, what Columbia? This Columbia? The one on Bush River is laughably Caucasian.
Anyway Taco Bell is a fine restaurant, one of only two fast food venues I regularly visit, since it and Subway are the only good/cheap vegetarian venues.
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 11:44:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:41:53 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 11:33:58 PM
i'm not making asinine comments like you have though.
Ain't making none. What Americans have done to Mexican food is lovely. :)
You are delusional which was made quite clear with the Pomona love.
Nope, not really. /pretty sure most of America would agree. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2012, 11:46:28 PM
Anyway Taco Bell is a fine restaurant, one of only two fast food venues I regularly visit, since it and Subway are the only good/cheap vegetarian venues.
Neither of those even enter the realm of acceptability. For shame!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2012, 11:44:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:41:53 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 11:33:58 PM
i'm not making asinine comments like you have though.
Ain't making none. What Americans have done to Mexican food is lovely. :)
True dat, my mocha non-traditional male friend. Tex Mex has developed into its own genre, and it's the best of both worlds.
:x
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:48:01 PM
Nope, not really. /pretty sure most of America would agree. :)
Then they would be wrong.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:48:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2012, 11:46:28 PM
Anyway Taco Bell is a fine restaurant, one of only two fast food venues I regularly visit, since it and Subway are the only good/cheap vegetarian venues.
Neither of those even enter the realm of acceptability. For shame!
The veggie patty sub is delicious, as is a volcano burrito with beans instead of beef. :mmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2012, 11:55:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:48:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 25, 2012, 11:46:28 PM
Anyway Taco Bell is a fine restaurant, one of only two fast food venues I regularly visit, since it and Subway are the only good/cheap vegetarian venues.
Neither of those even enter the realm of acceptability. For shame!
The veggie patty sub is delicious, as is a volcano burrito with beans instead of beef. :mmm:
I'mma give you a South Carolina exemption.
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 11:51:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:48:01 PM
Nope, not really. /pretty sure most of America would agree. :)
Then they would be wrong.
And no.
Oh btw, did we want to play what did people really say when they supposedly made a point that Baja California has a sizable Chinese population?
Quote from: katmaiSome of the best Chinese food I've had was in Tijuana.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:59:17 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 25, 2012, 11:51:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:48:01 PM
Nope, not really. /pretty sure most of America would agree. :)
Then they would be wrong.
And no.
Oh btw, did we want to play what did people really say when they supposedly made a point that Baja California has a sizable Chinese population?
Quote from: katmaiSome of the best Chinese food I've had was in Tijuana.
Because their is a huge Chinese population, jesus you are a fucking idiot Kyle.
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:23:14 PM
Also Californian Mexican/Tex-Mex is better than anything Mexico produced on its own.
Although I like Tex-Mex cuisine, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this. I'm not sure I know what 'Californian Mexican' is unless you're talking about giant SF-style burritos, but authentic Mexican food is one of the world's great cuisines IMO.
I spent three weeks in Mexico a while ago and TBH got bored shitless with the food. Everywhere seemed to offer the same few dishes. This was all in the Yucatan and Mexico City, might be different to the cuisine further north.
Jalisco is where it's at for "regular" Mexican food.
E: Uh. This, you know, doesn't necessarily mean that JALISCO TAQUERIA #2767 joint around the corner from your laundromat is actually any good.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 25, 2012, 10:52:00 PM
I have noticed that throughout the Baltimore metro area--and this is anecdotal, mind you, simply from my experiences in fast food, which is legion--is that the Chik-fil-As aren't nearly as...well...as diverse as other fast food restaurants.
I mean, the Hunt Valley Chik-fil-A I went to today, the girls in the back looked like the Towson University JV cheerleading squad. The Burger King down the block? Straight outta Greenmount and E. 25th Street, yo. Same with the Mickey D's Steak House next door.
I've noticed that about all the Chik-fil-As around here.
Veddy interestink. :hmm:
I noticed the whiteness at the one in Beavercreek Ohio near Wright State. Mostly skinny cute chicks, with a few older and chucky whites thrown in. Miller Lane in Dayton? NEGRO CITY. And better chicken too.
But I have also noticed a distict lack of black waitresses in sit down restaurants in the past few years.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 26, 2012, 06:07:41 AM
But I have also noticed a distict lack of black waitresses in sit down restaurants in the past few years.
They moved up. Now they're all officers at the Department of Corrections.
About 3 months ago, I had this white waitress that was a dead ringer for Layne Staley. I kept looking around for Cantrell to show up.
I just wanted to share that. I didn't want her number.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 26, 2012, 06:41:59 AM
waitress that was a dead ringer for Layne Staley.
:hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on July 26, 2012, 06:47:30 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 26, 2012, 06:41:59 AM
waitress that was a dead ringer for Layne Staley.
:hmm:
All she needed was that nanny goat chin beard and she was early AiC Staley.
My Big Boy and fries was delicious however. CHEESE AND PICKLES ONLY.
Hence the :hmm:, because AFAIK Staley always had facial hair when he was famous. :)
I opened this thread to figure out how a topic like this would garner three pages on Languish. I should have known that it would devolve into a discussion of fast foods. Now I'm craving french fries. Thanks, guys. :grr:
If I visit the US again, I will try to see if I can find a Chick-fil-A restaurant.
Whats' wrong with Taco Bell? Crunch wrap supreme!
Quote from: Monoriu on July 26, 2012, 10:15:25 AM
If I visit the US again, I will try to see if I can find a Chick-fil-A restaurant.
I can guarantee you a very underwhelming experience.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 26, 2012, 10:34:28 AM
Whats' wrong with Taco Bell? Crunch wrap supreme!
It is disgusting?
The much better Del Taco needs to expand.
Quote from: Gups on July 26, 2012, 05:39:48 AM
I spent three weeks in Mexico a while ago and TBH got bored shitless with the food. Everywhere seemed to offer the same few dishes. This was all in the Yucatan and Mexico City, might be different to the cuisine further north.
The southern Mexicans make fun of the northern Mexican food: "Would you like chile con carne or carne con chile?"
Quote from: garbon on July 26, 2012, 11:10:02 AM
The much better Del Taco needs to expand.
I think they used to be the same company way back in the 60s.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 26, 2012, 11:38:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 26, 2012, 11:10:02 AM
The much better Del Taco needs to expand.
I think they used to be the same company way back in the 60s.
Del Taco's wiki page doesn't say anything about it.
My biggest beef with Taco Bell is it takes me an hour to read through their menu.
Quote from: Barrister on July 26, 2012, 11:46:24 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 26, 2012, 11:38:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 26, 2012, 11:10:02 AM
The much better Del Taco needs to expand.
I think they used to be the same company way back in the 60s.
Del Taco's wiki page doesn't say anything about it.
Though wiki does list that they had stores in Texas in the 70s that were then sold off to Taco Bell.
Del Taco is always on my to-do list each Christmas in Palm Springs.
I like Moe's for burritos and tacos. Taco Bell sucks ass except for volcano sauce.
I tried Jimboy's Tacos the other day for the first time. Not impressed.
I had a chicken sandwich at chick-fil-a today because of this thread. Thanks assholes.
The regular Chik-Fil-A sandwich is pretty good, though the stark saucelessness of the sandwich is off-putting at first exposure. Only ever had that and those little fried chicken sweet rolls on the breakfast menu, which I remember being really delicious. Chiken Minis, maybe?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 26, 2012, 06:49:41 PM
The regular Chik-Fil-A sandwich is pretty good, though the stark saucelessness of the sandwich is off-putting at first exposure.
They give you barbecue sauce packets to put on it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 26, 2012, 06:53:00 PM
They give you barbecue sauce packets to put on it.
Do they scream at you and predict you will burn in a sea of fire if you sully their samwich with barbeque sauce, or do they hand them right over?
I've usually had them offer them up front.
I don't want to fuck around with their shitty packets anyways. You wanna sell me a chicken sandwich, you either sauce it or you don't.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 26, 2012, 06:49:41 PM
The regular Chik-Fil-A sandwich is pretty good, though the stark saucelessness of the sandwich is off-putting at first exposure. Only ever had that and those little fried chicken sweet rolls on the breakfast menu, which I remember being really delicious. Chiken Minis, maybe?
Correct... and I always put mayo on my chik-fil-a sammiches.
I usually put salsa and tabasco on mine.
It's better than going the other direction like Carl's Jr. I want to eat my sandwich, not drink it.
Quote from: Caliga on July 26, 2012, 05:13:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 25, 2012, 11:23:14 PM
Also Californian Mexican/Tex-Mex is better than anything Mexico produced on its own.
Although I like Tex-Mex cuisine, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this. I'm not sure I know what 'Californian Mexican' is unless you're talking about giant SF-style burritos, but authentic Mexican food is one of the world's great cuisines IMO.
tex-mex to me means Nachos, Chili, Chimichanga's, Cheddar Cheese and fajitas. While okay compared to the Mole sauce dishes, Birria, Cochinita pibil along with the cheeses of mexico are frankly better.
Quote from: Gups on July 26, 2012, 05:39:48 AM
I spent three weeks in Mexico a while ago and TBH got bored shitless with the food. Everywhere seemed to offer the same few dishes. This was all in the Yucatan and Mexico City, might be different to the cuisine further north.
Northern dishes are bigger on grilled meats ala Carne Asada, but not sure what exactly you were seeing.
Had Five Guy for the first time the other day. Pretty good.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 26, 2012, 08:44:26 PM
Had Five Guy for the first time the other day. Pretty good.
:thumbsup:
I like the comparable chain The Habit Burger out in Cali. a little better, in part because you can get avocado on your burger. :mmm:
Avocado? :puke:
Avocado makes everything that's delicious even more delicious.
What's the big deal? I mean who hasn't...
I mean Absolutely Appalling! :mad:
Why does putting avocado on something automatically make it a California something?
Perhaps because people do it fairly often there, it seems? Case in point: The Habit Burger.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 26, 2012, 09:30:59 PM
Why does putting avocado on something automatically make it a California something?
Why does putting feta on something automatically make it a Greek something?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 26, 2012, 09:30:59 PM
Why does putting avocado on something automatically make it a California something?
I think it is one of the non-traditional ingredients linked with California cuisine.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 26, 2012, 10:39:12 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 26, 2012, 09:30:59 PM
Why does putting avocado on something automatically make it a California something?
Why does putting feta on something automatically make it a Greek something?
Oh that's easy. If American listened to silly Euro rules, Greece would be the only place that can make it. :D
Had the spicy chicken at Chick-fil-A yesterday. Always thought their chicken was good, but not great. Waffle fries are awesome, though.
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2012, 09:13:13 AM
Had the spicy chicken at Chick-fil-A yesterday. Always thought their chicken was good, but not great. Waffle fries are awesome, though.
Anything particularly special about the waffle fries?
Quote from: Valmy on July 27, 2012, 09:25:33 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 27, 2012, 09:13:13 AM
Had the spicy chicken at Chick-fil-A yesterday. Always thought their chicken was good, but not great. Waffle fries are awesome, though.
Anything particularly special about the waffle fries?
They're fresh, and seem to always be cooked just right-- not too crispy, yet not undercooked. Plus there's the coolness of eating a matrix of fried starch each time.
Dammit, you guys are making me hungry for some of that tasty Christian-homophoboic-fried goodness -- and I don't even know if that chain exists in my country! :D
Not too thrilled about their waffle fries, but man, their nuggets are like fucking crack. Whenever we catered from them, I was the one taking the remnants of the nugget platter home.
Thinking of Chik-fil-A, Conan O'Brien scored a rare hit last night with his "Chaz the Intolerant Chicken" sketch. "If you want hot meat between two buns, covered in sauce, it's Chik-fil-A or the pits of Hell." Normally, I find Conan pretty "meh," but I lulzed at that one. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on July 25, 2012, 02:05:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 25, 2012, 02:03:17 PM
The pictures look like two different people to me.
Yes. One is a cow and the other is Jon Stewart.
:lol:
As if their PR guy didn't have enough to deal with: http://news.yahoo.com/chick-fil-vice-president-public-relations-dies-heart-192201763--abc-news-politics.html .
God has spoken! :pope:
Guy took the easy way out.
Poor guy. Even in his death he's failing at his job. That's like a Philip Morris PR guy dying from lung cancer.
God doesn't like it when someone messes with his chosen people (gays).
I support freedom of expression.
Especially against gays.
Did Martinus rage-quit already?
I would have paid good money to see that.
Too bad I missed this thread.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 26, 2012, 08:44:26 PM
Had Five Guy for the first time the other day. Pretty good.
Whoa, we don't need to know about the sexual escapades in the Air Force, thank you.
Quote from: Siege on July 28, 2012, 09:59:53 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 26, 2012, 08:44:26 PM
Had Five Guy for the first time the other day. Pretty good.
Whoa, we don't need to know about the sexual escapades in the Air Force, thank you.
You are confusing the Air Force with Navy.
Unless the Five Guys is referring to a street gang...then it would be the Army.
The only thing five guys in the USAF would be doing together is playing Magic/Warhammer/World of Warcraft.
Went to Chick-Fil-A for lunch. Didn't know there was some sort of conservative buy in. Like I could tell as the parking lot was as it normally was, bursting full of AF faggits and aggressive soccer moms.
Saw a few people with signs. Big whoop. Didn't see any fag counter-protesters. Likely couldn't be bothered oozing out of the Oregon District or Yellow Springs. Fags. :rolleyes:
I was unimpressed by Five Guys. Considering the markup on the price of their burgers and fries I was expecting something better than slightly above average fast food.
They give you so many fries!
Quote from: frunk on August 01, 2012, 01:21:23 PM
I was unimpressed by Five Guys. Considering the markup on the price of their burgers and fries I was expecting something better than slightly above average fast food.
I quite like them. Don't go often though because it is extremely filling.
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 01:24:38 PM
They give you so many fries!
Not the place I went to. Could be it varies.
Yeah I knew that David Dewhurst dick was in trouble when he started saying how he was responsible for no gay marriage in Texas and started doing publicity stunts at Chick-fil-A. Being hammer of the Gays just doesn't get out the vote like it used to.
Quote from: frunk on August 01, 2012, 01:29:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 01:24:38 PM
They give you so many fries!
Not the place I went to. Could be it varies.
Odd. Both the one I went to in Baltimore and the one here in NYC gave me tons of fries. Really more than I could eat. In New York when I took it to go, I watched them drop extra fries just into the bag before handing it to me. :D
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 01:37:27 PM
Quote from: frunk on August 01, 2012, 01:29:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 01:24:38 PM
They give you so many fries!
Not the place I went to. Could be it varies.
Odd. Both the one I went to in Baltimore and the one here in NYC gave me tons of fries. Really more than I could eat. In New York when I took it to go, I watched them drop extra fries just into the bag before handing it to me. :D
They usually always give a mountain of them up here. I usually have to split them with one or two others.
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 01:37:27 PM
Odd. Both the one I went to in Baltimore and the one here in NYC gave me tons of fries. Really more than I could eat. In New York when I took it to go, I watched them drop extra fries just into the bag before handing it to me. :D
The place I went to just opened less than a month ago and it was hectic/packed. Maybe I'll give them another try.
Yeah I was not all that impressed with the one in Austin. But then I very rarely eat Hamburgers and when I do they are usually restaurant quality.
The fries were pretty decent but yeah overall sorta pricey.
chick-fil-A sounds like a horrible name for a restaurant.
Quote from: Josephus on August 01, 2012, 01:47:04 PM
chick-fil-A sounds like a horrible name for a restaurant.
It is also a horrible restaurant IMO. But it used to be a Languish meme related to Fahdiz....I think. What was that about anybody remember?
I miss Catholic fagdiz. :(
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2012, 01:48:14 PM
Quote from: Josephus on August 01, 2012, 01:47:04 PM
chick-fil-A sounds like a horrible name for a restaurant.
It is also a horrible restaurant IMO. But it used to be a Languish meme related to Fahdiz....I think. What was that about anybody remember?
Don't make me drive to Austin and punch you in the nuts.
Odd, I just looked up Chick-Fil-A and apparently there is one at NYU as part of the dining hall that's open to the public.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 01, 2012, 01:51:16 PM
Don't make me drive to Austin and punch you in the nuts.
Oh was it you? :blush:
Damn how many memes have you had Mr. Vagina Wall?
Memes that exist?
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 01:51:25 PM
Odd, I just looked up Chick-Fil-A and apparently there is one at NYU as part of the dining hall that's open to the public.
Yea, my roommate tried to get the school to cancel its contract.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 01:58:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 01:51:25 PM
Odd, I just looked up Chick-Fil-A and apparently there is one at NYU as part of the dining hall that's open to the public.
Yea, my roommate tried to get the school to cancel its contract.
Sounds like a student. :D
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 01:58:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 01:51:25 PM
Odd, I just looked up Chick-Fil-A and apparently there is one at NYU as part of the dining hall that's open to the public.
Yea, my roommate tried to get the school to cancel its contract.
They are an official partner of UT as well. I look forward to the Students getting back on campus this fall. Should be fun.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 01:58:45 PM
Yea, my roommate tried to get the school to cancel its contract.
Why not just eat somewhere else?
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2012, 01:52:20 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 01, 2012, 01:51:16 PM
Don't make me drive to Austin and punch you in the nuts.
Oh was it you? :blush:
Damn how many memes have you had Mr. Vagina Wall?
wut?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 02:16:37 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 01:58:45 PM
Yea, my roommate tried to get the school to cancel its contract.
Why not just eat somewhere else?
Because that's not what students do. They make a stink about things.
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 02:22:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 02:16:37 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 01:58:45 PM
Yea, my roommate tried to get the school to cancel its contract.
Why not just eat somewhere else?
Because that's not what students do. They make a stink about things.
The ones who make a stink about things are often akin to football players at certain major football powers--they're students in name only.
Quote from: dps on August 01, 2012, 02:29:56 PM
The ones who make a stink about things are often akin to football players at certain major football powers--they're students in name only.
Um football players not only get entrance standards waived and get full scholarship rides they have to spend like 60 hours a week on football. Pretty sure activists neither get their entrance standards wavied nor get full scholarship rides and it certainly does not take 60 hours a week to make a stink about something. So I have a hard time seeing what you are basing that on.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 01, 2012, 01:51:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2012, 01:48:14 PM
Quote from: Josephus on August 01, 2012, 01:47:04 PM
chick-fil-A sounds like a horrible name for a restaurant.
It is also a horrible restaurant IMO. But it used to be a Languish meme related to Fahdiz....I think. What was that about anybody remember?
Don't make me drive to Austin and punch you in the nuts.
Valmy - the joke was that Fahdiz loved Chik-Fil-A, but there were none in Portland. Ed would periodically post to say he was eating at Chik-Fil-A in order to taunt Fahdiz.
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 02:36:55 PM
Valmy - the joke was that Fahdiz loved Chik-Fil-A, but there were none in Portland. Ed would periodically post to say he was eating at Chik-Fil-A in order to taunt Fahdiz.
Ah yeah I knew it was something like that.
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2012, 02:35:53 PM
Quote from: dps on August 01, 2012, 02:29:56 PM
The ones who make a stink about things are often akin to football players at certain major football powers--they're students in name only.
Um football players not only get entrance standards waived and get full scholarship rides they have to spend like 60 hours a week on football. Pretty sure activists neither get their entrance standards wavied nor get full scholarship rides and it certainly does not take 60 hours a week to make a stink about something. So I have a hard time seeing what you are basing that on.
Back when I was involved in student politics the "activist" types tended to be in grad programs that never ended, and thus had lots of time to pick on causes such as this.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.starpulse.com%2FPhotos%2FPreviews%2FPCU-movie-f03.jpg&hash=9754f22354254470304d78d3a30602b9013e3e0a)
MEAT TOSSER!
Nobody has seen PCU? Well fuck you too, buddy.
I was gonna post Tonight Everybody gets laid! But then figured no one would get the joke
Quote from: katmai on August 01, 2012, 02:49:02 PM
I was gonna post Tonight Everybody gets laid! But then figured no one would get the joke
:)
I'll call you Droz.
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 02:38:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2012, 02:35:53 PM
Quote from: dps on August 01, 2012, 02:29:56 PM
The ones who make a stink about things are often akin to football players at certain major football powers--they're students in name only.
Um football players not only get entrance standards waived and get full scholarship rides they have to spend like 60 hours a week on football. Pretty sure activists neither get their entrance standards wavied nor get full scholarship rides and it certainly does not take 60 hours a week to make a stink about something. So I have a hard time seeing what you are basing that on.
Back when I was involved in student politics the "activist" types tended to be in grad programs that never ended, and thus had lots of time to pick on causes such as this.
There werent' a lot of activist types at my school, but the ones that were there tended to not show up for class very much.
We were inundated with them. :angry:
Quote
Chick-Fil-As Across The Country Are Absolutely Jam-Packed
By all early accounts, Gov. Mike Huckabee's "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" seems like a wild success.
Conservatives are lining up in droves. Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is offering his support and urging supporters to visit a restaurant. One Wendy's franchise owner expressed his support for Chick-fil-A at a North Carolina Wendy's.
Chick-fil-A originally incurred a backlash when COO Dan Cathy affirmed in an interview that the company did not support gay marriage.
"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said.
Some mayors around the country — including Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino — have publicly supported the boycott of Chick-fil-A.
According to its Facebook event page, more than 630,000 people planned to go to Chick-fil-A today.
Many of them took to Twitter and Instagram to document the craziness. As of this writing, there were almost 60,000 Instagram photos tagged with #chickfila.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chick-fil-a-appreciation-day-photos-conservatives-mike-huckabee-rick-santorum-2012-8
Hrm. A bit surprising, given: http://research.yougov.com/news/2012/07/27/chck-fil-takes-perception-dive-fast-food-eaters/.
Not surprising at all. There are enough anti-Gay people out there to fill a fast food chain.
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2012, 03:33:09 PM
Not surprising at all. There are enough anti-Gay people out there to fill a fast food chain.
That's true. I mean her argument is popular in the states where Chick Fila is; that Texans line up to oppose gay marriage doesn't shock me.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 03:40:44 PM
That's true. I mean her argument is popular in the states where Chick Fila is; that Texans line up to oppose gay marriage doesn't shock me.
Yeah they were all packed for lunch today. I LOL'd. Shorter line at Wendy's for me.
I'm not sure that social media is the best way to judge this as far as the metrics they called out. 600,000 is a high number but of those who clicked attend but then will actually go? Also, 60,000 photos would only be interesting if a) those were posted in the last few days or at least since the remarks came out and then b) all the tagged photos were of people celebrating the fast food chain which when I took a quick look wasn't the case.
The anecdotal comments about packed locales seem more compelling.
If I was Chik-Fil-A I would want this story to go away as fast as possible, and would hate for such a display by "supporters" that only keeps the story in the news for longer.
It depends on how dumb they are. They make think that this is the event that will convince people that gay marriage is wrong or something.
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 03:55:40 PM
If I was Chik-Fil-A I would want this story to go away as fast as possible, and would hate for such a display by "supporters" that only keeps the story in the news for longer.
I'm not sure. If they lose one Faeliin and gain two Billy Bobs they come out ahead.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 04:06:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 03:55:40 PM
If I was Chik-Fil-A I would want this story to go away as fast as possible, and would hate for such a display by "supporters" that only keeps the story in the news for longer.
I'm not sure. If they lose one Faeliin and gain two Billy Bobs they come out ahead.
One day of supporters isn't a viable business strategy unless you think all of those who showed up will now become long term customers. I'm not sure that there are many consumer products that want to be associated with bigotry. :D
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 04:12:20 PM
One day of supporters isn't a viable business strategy unless you think all of those who showed up will now become long term customers. I'm not sure that there are many consumer products that want to be associated with bigotry. :D
There might be some consumer products that don't mind being associated with freedom of religious expression.
Of course if Billy Bob and Amy Sue only come one day, while Faeelin boycots for eternity then they'll lose out. I postulated a different outcome.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 04:06:55 PM
I'm not sure. If they lose one Faeliin and gain two Billy Bobs they come out ahead.
Yeah pretty sure Billy Bob is going to go back to hamburgers after awhile. This is like all those people donating blood after 9/11. It did not signal a new era of vast blood donations.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 04:17:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 04:12:20 PM
One day of supporters isn't a viable business strategy unless you think all of those who showed up will now become long term customers. I'm not sure that there are many consumer products that want to be associated with bigotry. :D
There might be some consumer products that don't mind being associated with freedom of religious expression.
Of course if Billy Bob and Amy Sue only come one day, while Faeelin boycots for eternity then they'll lose out. I postulated a different outcome.
I don't see why your outcome is likely though. Is "freedom of religion" a driver on selection of a fast-food place?
And just to share my pov, this whole flap doesn't make me more or less likely to be a patron of Chick-Fil-A as I don't care what the head of a company says unless they are implementing discriminatory measures.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 01, 2012, 02:46:58 PM
Nobody has seen PCU? Well fuck you too, buddy.
I have. It was too close to reality for my tastes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 04:17:05 PM
There might be some consumer products that don't mind being associated with freedom of religious expression.
Cute bias.
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 03:55:40 PM
If I was Chik-Fil-A I would want this story to go away as fast as possible, and would hate for such a display by "supporters" that only keeps the story in the news for longer.
I would guess it depends on how this affects their branding, and how they think gay rights will play out long term, or if they care.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 04:25:42 PM
Cute bias.
I don't have a dog in this fight. What I'm opposed to is oversimplification and demonization.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 04:29:52 PM
I don't have a dog in this fight. What I'm opposed to is oversimplification and demonization.
I don't see the simplification? People are angry that Cathy thinks God's judgment will come to America if it allows gay marriage and because Chick Fila gives millions to anti-gay groups.
Nobody has accused the company itself of being discriminatory towards LGBT employees right? This is all because someone didn't like something the CEO said and some political hacks started trying to block the opening of new stores in their cities?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 01, 2012, 04:33:12 PM
Nobody has accused the company itself of being discriminatory towards LGBT employees right? This is all because someone didn't like something the CEO said and some political hacks started trying to block the opening of new stores in their cities?
Not quite; she was responding to a question about Chick Fila's donations to anti-gay groups. Her reply for some reason made people aware of donations the group has done for years.
I haven't eaten there because they donated to Exodus International, which supports conversion therapy for gays. Having gone through that as a teenager, they can fuck off.
http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001
The numbers to the most vehemently gay organizations are relatively small, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them increase now.
What's really weird about this controversy is that she could've just said "we donate to support traditional American family, we don't agree with extreme tactics" and it would've been like Cathy's past interviews.
The religious expression which got everyone:
Quotethink we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Cathy said. "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 04:17:05 PM
There might be some consumer products that don't mind being associated with freedom of religious expression.
God. First bribing politicians is speech and now it is religion. I think eventually lobbying and donating money to Pols will be hailed as the ultimate expression of the first amendment and the primary purpose of this country :P.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 04:37:14 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 01, 2012, 04:33:12 PM
Nobody has accused the company itself of being discriminatory towards LGBT employees right? This is all because someone didn't like something the CEO said and some political hacks started trying to block the opening of new stores in their cities?
Not quite; she was responding to a question about Chick Fila's donations to anti-gay groups. Her reply for some reason made people aware of donations the group has done for years.
I haven't eaten there because they donated to Exodus International, which supports conversion therapy for gays. Having gone through that as a teenager, they can fuck off.
http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001
The numbers to the most vehemently gay organizations are relatively small, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them increase now.
What's really weird about this controversy is that she could've just said "we donate to support traditional American family, we don't agree with extreme tactics" and it would've been like Cathy's past interviews.
The religious expression which got everyone:
Quotethink we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Cathy said. "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."
Dan Cathy is a guy, and the author of that statement.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 04:37:14 PM
I haven't eaten there because they donated to Exodus International, which supports conversion therapy for gays. Having gone through that as a teenager, they can fuck off.
All this rage because they donated $1,000?
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 05:03:11 PM
All this rage because they donated $1,000?
Yea, actually. They are free to apologize, but until they do so, I will assume they agreed with the organization when they donated.
Fae - is this your roommate then?
https://www.facebook.com/hillary.dworkoski
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 05:05:13 PM
Fae - is this your roommate then?
https://www.facebook.com/hillary.dworkoski
Nah, his attempt was less successful and took place a few years back.
Ah gotcha.
Well, Languishites don't give a fuck about political correctness:
Here's Berkut and Habbaku in front of the one in Lancaster, PA at the World Boardgaming Championships:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcf.geekdo-images.com%2Fimages%2Fpic1381429.jpg&hash=e691b1afc4a1eda2b702d7a9374d9a94f4092809)
And here they are, as we were about to be all homophobic over lunch yesterday:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcf.geekdo-images.com%2Fimages%2Fpic1381430.jpg&hash=2b4154cbafa3c488bc70876e053151626d6d644e)
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND FUCK FAGS COMING BETWEEN US AND OUR CHICKEN SAMMICHES
There were some black people there, but they left quickly.
http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=overrated_sandwiches
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2012, 05:14:27 PM
There were some black people there, but they left quickly.
What did you do? :ph34r:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2012, 05:37:54 PM
http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=overrated_sandwiches
:mad: I stopped reading there:
QuoteEvery Philly cheesesteak sandwich I've ever had has been an exploration of sadness. No other sandwich on this list gets as much scrutiny and faux expertise bloviating about the "real" sandwich as much as the Philly cheesesteak. It's not even a sandwich anymore, it's just an excuse to be smug (like New Yorkers and their magic pizza).
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 01, 2012, 05:37:54 PM
http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=overrated_sandwiches
How the hell the McRib wasn't ranked higher, I don't know. Talk about a mouthful of bio-industrial waste.
Of course, he reveals he's an idiot when he relates that fries are awful. :rolleyes:
I don't have any Chick-Fil-A restaurants nearby. Some north of Boston. I'd like to go now though, given all the crap over what the owner thinks of marriage. Dumb for the pols to try and stop them for their owner's views. Same as if a pro-abortion owner tries to open a store in, say, a city where the mayor is anti-abortion and wants to stop it for their views. That's just wrong.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 04:32:33 PM
I don't see the simplification? People are angry that Cathy thinks God's judgment will come to America if it allows gay marriage and because Chick Fila gives millions to anti-gay groups.
"I'm not sure that there are many consumer products that want to be associated with bigotry."
The dude on the left looks like he is going to murder somebody. or a younger George Brett.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 01, 2012, 05:56:26 PM
The dude on the left looks like he is going to murder somebody. or a younger George Brett.
lol, Berkut? He looks like he posts, right?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2012, 05:57:08 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 01, 2012, 05:56:26 PM
The dude on the left looks like he is going to murder somebody. or a younger George Brett.
lol, Berkut? He looks like he posts, right?
Yes. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2012, 05:57:08 PM
lol, Berkut? He looks like he posts, right?
Other than the fact his fingers look very articulated.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 05:51:51 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 04:32:33 PM
I don't see the simplification? People are angry that Cathy thinks God's judgment will come to America if it allows gay marriage and because Chick Fila gives millions to anti-gay groups.
"I'm not sure that there are many consumer products that want to be associated with bigotry."
You're right. She has a genuine belief that God will punish this nation for its arrogance in thinking gays can marry.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 06:02:18 PM
You're right. She has a genuine belief that God will punish this nation for its arrogance in thinking gays can marry.
Is that what the word bigot means to you?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 06:03:39 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 06:02:18 PM
You're right. She has a genuine belief that God will punish this nation for its arrogance in thinking gays can marry.
Is that what the word bigot means to you?
Evidently!
I don't think someone gets a pass on their beliefs just because they are religious beliefs.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 06:04:36 PM
Evidently!
I don't understand the rules of your game.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 06:06:09 PM
I don't understand the rules of your game.
I don't understand your point. You don't think you believe she is a bigot because she has a religious justification for her viewpoint. I don't think that's relevant; plenty of religious people can and have had bigoted views.
Would you prefer the term "morally wrong?"
You people are making me hungry. And they don't have the banana pudding milkshakes right now. Peach? Sucks.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 01, 2012, 06:11:36 PM
You people are making me hungry. And they don't have the banana pudding milkshakes right now. Peach? Sucks.
Try KFC.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 01, 2012, 06:11:36 PM
And they don't have the banana pudding milkshakes right now. Peach? Sucks.
Yeah, I was bitching about that one yesterday.
Quote from: KRonn on August 01, 2012, 05:50:32 PM
I don't have any Chick-Fil-A restaurants nearby. Some north of Boston. I'd like to go now though, given all the crap over what the owner thinks of marriage. Dumb for the pols to try and stop them for their owner's views. Same as if a pro-abortion owner tries to open a store in, say, a city where the mayor is anti-abortion and wants to stop it for their views. That's just wrong.
Yeah. Individuals are, and should be, free to decline to patronize an establishment if they disagree with the owners' political/social views, but the government trying to block the opening of businesses based on those views is a whole other kettle of fish.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 06:13:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 01, 2012, 06:11:36 PM
You people are making me hungry. And they don't have the banana pudding milkshakes right now. Peach? Sucks.
Try KFC.
Is this because they have Banana Pudding milkshakes, or because of the gay? Remember, I can't be swayed by social issues.
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 03:55:40 PM
If I was Chik-Fil-A I would want this story to go away as fast as possible, and would hate for such a display by "supporters" that only keeps the story in the news for longer.
If you were Chik-Fil-A you would probably be open on Sunday too.
I heard Cathy speak in January at a conference I was at on the topic of financial controls. He spent a couple of minutes discussing Jesus, Sunday school, blah blah blah. Either spreading conservative Christianity is a core mission of his business, or it is a core marketing concept.
Interestingly, I think In and Out Burgers on the west coast is also into the christian stuff a bit like Chik Fil A.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 01, 2012, 06:13:37 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 01, 2012, 06:11:36 PM
And they don't have the banana pudding milkshakes right now. Peach? Sucks.
Yeah, I was bitching about that one yesterday.
I might have to make a banana pudding and toss it into a blender with some ice cream just to see how close I can come to their version.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 01, 2012, 06:15:12 PM
Is this because they have Banana Pudding milkshakes, or because of the gay? Remember, I can't be swayed by social issues.
It's actually awful, I just want you to suffer.
Sonic is where milkshakes are at.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 06:21:20 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 01, 2012, 06:15:12 PM
Is this because they have Banana Pudding milkshakes, or because of the gay? Remember, I can't be swayed by social issues.
It's actually awful, I just want you to suffer.
Sonic is where milkshakes are at.
I'm smarter than that. KFC is an abomination. :)
And Sonic sucks.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 06:09:29 PM
I don't understand your point. You don't think you believe she is a bigot because she has a religious justification for her viewpoint. I don't think that's relevant; plenty of religious people can and have had bigoted views.
Would you prefer the term "morally wrong?"
I would prefer the term "I disagree."
My point is not that HE is not a bigot because HE has a religious justification. My point is that the word bigot has a meaning other than "someone who is opposed in whole or in part to a gay issue." Same with homophobe and gay basher.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 06:02:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 05:51:51 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 04:32:33 PM
I don't see the simplification? People are angry that Cathy thinks God's judgment will come to America if it allows gay marriage and because Chick Fila gives millions to anti-gay groups.
"I'm not sure that there are many consumer products that want to be associated with bigotry."
You're right. She has a genuine belief that God will punish this nation for its arrogance in thinking gays can marry.
It's a dude, dude.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 01, 2012, 06:15:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 01, 2012, 03:55:40 PM
If I was Chik-Fil-A I would want this story to go away as fast as possible, and would hate for such a display by "supporters" that only keeps the story in the news for longer.
If you were Chik-Fil-A you would probably be open on Sunday too.
I heard Cathy speak in January at a conference I was at on the topic of financial controls. He spent a couple of minutes discussing Jesus, Sunday school, blah blah blah. Either spreading conservative Christianity is a core mission of his business, or it is a core marketing concept.
Interestingly, I think In and Out Burgers on the west coast is also into the christian stuff a bit like Chik Fil A.
Nah. Being closed on Sundays doesn't risk turning off a percentage of the total population. You lose 1/7 of your sales (but probably less - can't imagine Sunday is a big fast food day), but you don't offend anyone.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 06:23:46 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 06:09:29 PM
I don't understand your point. You don't think you believe she is a bigot because she has a religious justification for her viewpoint. I don't think that's relevant; plenty of religious people can and have had bigoted views.
Would you prefer the term "morally wrong?"
I would prefer the term "I disagree."
My point is not that HE is not a bigot because HE has a religious justification. My point is that the word bigot has a meaning other than "someone who is opposed in whole or in part to a gay issue." Same with homophobe and gay basher.
Agreed Yi. Doesn't he have about the same view on same sex marriage as Pres Obama did prior to a few months ago?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 06:23:46 PM
I would prefer the term "I disagree."
My point is not that HE is not a bigot because HE has a religious justification. My point is that the word bigot has a meaning other than "someone who is opposed in whole or in part to a gay issue." Same with homophobe and gay basher.
Yes yes, it's a dude. Thank you to the three people who pointed this out.
Isn't the whole point about whether or not what he said is bigoted? Those supporting gay rights want to live in a country where she is viewed as a bigot; those supporting her want to live in a nation where her viewpoint is recognized as mainstream. The whole point of the outrage is really to stigmatize her statements; the whole point of defending them is to support and encourage them, especially on the heels of so many corporations coming out for gay marriage.
Quote from: KRonn on August 01, 2012, 06:51:36 PM
Agreed Yi. Doesn't he have about the same view on same sex marriage as Pres Obama did prior to a few months ago?
Obama thought God's judgment would descend upon its America for its arrogance thinking gays could marry and donated money to groups associated with opposition to gay marriage?
I think there is a difference between Obama saying "I support equal rights for gays but don't think they should get married" and "God will punish us for our hubris."
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 06:53:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 06:23:46 PM
I would prefer the term "I disagree."
My point is not that HE is not a bigot because HE has a religious justification. My point is that the word bigot has a meaning other than "someone who is opposed in whole or in part to a gay issue." Same with homophobe and gay basher.
Yes yes, it's a dude. Thank you to the three people who pointed this out.
Isn't the whole point about whether or not what she said is bigoted? Those supporting gay rights want to live in a country where she is viewed as a bigot; those supporting her want to live in a nation where her viewpoint is recognized as mainstream. The whole point of the outrage is really to stigmatize her statements; the whole point of defending them is to support and encourage them, especially on the heels of so many corporations coming out for gay marriage.
So even after 3 different people have pointed out that the owner is male, not female, you still can't figure out the right personal pronoun to use? Or are you just trying to be insulting to him? (Hint: he probably doesn't vist Languish, so it's highly unlikely that he'll be insulted.) Or are you just making a juvenile joke based on his last name?
I made a typo. I hope you can forgive me.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 07:01:35 PM
I made a typo. I hope you can forgive me.
No problemo. I'm not one of the Grammar Nazis (though I reserve the right to point an laugh at others mistakes). In this case, I thought it was deliberate, which had some unfortunate implications.
Quote from: dps on August 01, 2012, 07:05:06 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 07:01:35 PM
I made a typo. I hope you can forgive me.
No problemo. I'm not one of the Grammar Nazis (though I reserve the right to point an laugh at others mistakes). In this case, I thought it was deliberate, which had some unfortunate implications.
No, although my reply was a bit more short tempered than it should've been.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 06:53:28 PM
Yes yes, it's a dude. Thank you to the three people who pointed this out.
Isn't the whole point about whether or not what she said is bigoted? Those supporting gay rights want to live in a country where she is viewed as a bigot; those supporting her want to live in a nation where her viewpoint is recognized as mainstream. The whole point of the outrage is really to stigmatize her statements; the whole point of defending them is to support and encourage them, especially on the heels of so many corporations coming out for gay marriage.
In my book the antithesis of bigot is *not* mainstream. 18th century abolitionists were not bigots as far as I can tell.
Why is it necessary that the rest of the country view HIM ( :lol:) as a bigot? There are people on both sides of the affirmative action debate who go days and weeks without considering each other bigots. Same with abortion, same with all kinds of issues.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 06:53:55 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 01, 2012, 06:51:36 PM
Agreed Yi. Doesn't he have about the same view on same sex marriage as Pres Obama did prior to a few months ago?
Obama thought God's judgment would descend upon its America for its arrogance thinking gays could marry and donated money to groups associated with opposition to gay marriage?
I think there is a difference between Obama saying "I support equal rights for gays but don't think they should get married" and "God will punish us for our hubris."
Well, one guy also has religious views on it, and the other doesn't. He's allowed his beliefs; I strongly disagree with that view on gays and God, but for those who follow religions they have to make the choice one way or the other. When I was more Catholic I didn't believe in everthing, or take things so literally.
Are people really arguing that this Dan Cathy person is not a bigot?
He's obviously a bigot, given his stance on gay issues.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 07:08:07 PM
Why is it necessary that the rest of the country view HIM ( :lol:) as a bigot? There are people on both sides of the affirmative action debate who go days and weeks without considering each other bigots. Same with abortion, same with all kinds of issues.
Sure. But if someone was to come out against interracial marriage, you would agree we'd call them a bigot, even though in 1940 they would not, right?
Quote from: Jacob on August 01, 2012, 07:09:56 PM
Are people really arguing that this Dan Cathy person is not a bigot?
He's obviously a bigot, given his stance on gay issues.
Bigot is a loaded word, and to use it against someone who doesn't like a group that isn't exactly socially acceptable is a bit strong in my opinion. You might as well call someone a bigot for their dislike of pedophiles.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 07:11:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 07:08:07 PM
Why is it necessary that the rest of the country view HIM ( :lol:) as a bigot? There are people on both sides of the affirmative action debate who go days and weeks without considering each other bigots. Same with abortion, same with all kinds of issues.
Sure. But if someone was to come out against interracial marriage, you would agree we'd call them a bigot, even though in 1940 they would not, right?
Not necessarily, if we're talking about a particular interracial marriage, and not interracial marriage in the abstract.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 01, 2012, 07:11:44 PM
Sure. But if someone was to come out against interracial marriage, you would agree we'd call them a bigot, even though in 1940 they would not, right?
I find this a pretty good example and have no quick answer. What do you think of mine?
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2012, 07:13:56 PMBigot is a loaded word, and to use it against someone who doesn't like a group that isn't exactly socially acceptable is a bit strong in my opinion. You might as well call someone a bigot for their dislike of pedophiles.
Sure the word is loaded.
In the case of Mr. Cathy, it's appropriately loaded. The man is clearly a bigot.
Quote from: Jacob on August 01, 2012, 07:39:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2012, 07:13:56 PMBigot is a loaded word, and to use it against someone who doesn't like a group that isn't exactly socially acceptable is a bit strong in my opinion. You might as well call someone a bigot for their dislike of pedophiles.
Sure the word is loaded.
In the case of Mr. Cathy, it's appropriately loaded. The man is clearly a bigot.
I'm just aware of his not agreeing on same sex marriage. And he donates to a group that thinks they can "cure" gays. What else has he done? Not being snarky, I just don't know.
Quote from: Jacob on August 01, 2012, 07:39:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2012, 07:13:56 PMBigot is a loaded word, and to use it against someone who doesn't like a group that isn't exactly socially acceptable is a bit strong in my opinion. You might as well call someone a bigot for their dislike of pedophiles.
Sure the word is loaded.
In the case of Mr. Cathy, it's appropriately loaded. The man is clearly a bigot.
I disagree.
Quote from: KRonn on August 01, 2012, 07:44:59 PM
I'm just aware of his not agreeing on same sex marriage. And he donates to a group that thinks they can "cure" gays. What else has he done? Not being snarky, I just don't know.
I don't know, but each of those two things are enough to considered a bigot.
Just like not agreeing to interracial marriage or donating to groups intent on keeping people of the "wrong religion" out of a neighbourhood or other area would be the mark of a bigot, pretty much on their own.
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2012, 07:52:25 PMI disagree.
You usually do. Doesn't change the facts.
Quote from: Jacob on August 01, 2012, 07:54:40 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 01, 2012, 07:44:59 PM
I'm just aware of his not agreeing on same sex marriage. And he donates to a group that thinks they can "cure" gays. What else has he done? Not being snarky, I just don't know.
I don't know, but each of those two things are enough to considered a bigot.
Just like not agreeing to interracial marriage or donating to groups intent on keeping people of the "wrong religion" out of a neighbourhood or other area would be the mark of a bigot, pretty much on their own.
The marriage thing isn't bigotry, is it? Just a difference of opinion. As I said, not too long ago Pres Obama had the same view.
Maybe the part of trying cure gays is bigoted, or just ignorance of what homosexuality really is. But I can agree that this can get to some nastiness, or perhaps bigotry.
Thinking about it though, depending on what they feel of same sex marriage it can be bigotry. But I'm thinking that it's possible to disagree with gay marriage without being bigoted. Some people may just look at it more in traditional, legal and practical terms as a man and a woman.
Well keeping blacks and whites separate was also a matter of opinion. I do not see how the fact opinions are involved has anything to do with whether or not bigotry is involved. Do bigots not have opinions?
Quote from: KRonn on August 01, 2012, 08:03:46 PM
The marriage thing isn't bigotry, is it? Just a difference of opinion. As I said, not too long ago Pres Obama had the same view.
It's just a simple opinion when you voice that people in a happy, healthy committed relationship shouldn't be able to have their relationship recognized by the state and that God will punish us for such abominations?
Quote from: KRonn on August 01, 2012, 08:03:46 PM
Maybe the part of trying cure gays is bigoted, or just ignorance of what homosexuality really is. But I can agree that this can get to some nastiness, or perhaps bigotry.
Yes, because it is easier to just provide funds to a group that aims to make gay people straight rather than taking a hot second to learn about homosexuality and see that its okay. Sorry but not in this day and age.
With both of those items, one is really just being spiteful.
Quote from: KRonn on August 01, 2012, 08:09:21 PM
Some people may just look at it more in traditional, legal and practical terms as a man and a woman.
:huh:
Those are only traditional and legal terms because that's how we generally let it be. Not sure what you mean on "practical" unless that just a rhetorical bit.
Quote from: KRonn on August 01, 2012, 08:09:21 PM
Thinking about it though, depending on what they feel of same sex marriage it can be bigotry. But I'm thinking that it's possible to disagree with gay marriage without being bigoted. Some people may just look at it more in traditional, legal and practical terms as a man and a woman.
They can look at it however they want, but it's still bigoted.
Ten years or however long ago Obama and many other people thought gay marriage was wrong. That doesn't make it not bigoted; it's merely that the bigotry was generally unexamined and socially acceptable.
However, now, ten years later, such bigotry stands out more.
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2012, 08:10:17 PMYour bigotry has been noted.
Yours was noted a long time ago :bowler:
Quote from: Jacob on August 01, 2012, 08:14:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 01, 2012, 08:10:17 PMYour bigotry has been noted.
Yours was noted a long time ago :bowler:
As well it should be. I have no problem condemning faggotry and other attempts to turn society against itself. We're a community, not a group of individuals.
I am a bigot.
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 08:12:13 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 01, 2012, 08:09:21 PM
Some people may just look at it more in traditional, legal and practical terms as a man and a woman.
:huh:
Those are only traditional and legal terms because that's how we generally let it be. Not sure what you mean on "practical" unless that just a rhetorical bit.
Not sure, just thinking that some people feel same sex marriage doesn't make sense in every day terms, not religious or anything.
"Every day is a chick-fil-a day."
I heard a retard say that.
Quote from: Jacob on August 01, 2012, 08:13:45 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 01, 2012, 08:09:21 PM
Thinking about it though, depending on what they feel of same sex marriage it can be bigotry. But I'm thinking that it's possible to disagree with gay marriage without being bigoted. Some people may just look at it more in traditional, legal and practical terms as a man and a woman.
They can look at it however they want, but it's still bigoted.
Ten years or however long ago Obama and many other people thought gay marriage was wrong. That doesn't make it not bigoted; it's merely that the bigotry was generally unexamined and socially acceptable.
However, now, ten years later, such bigotry stands out more.
Just earlier this year Obama didn't support same sex marriage. I think tossing the word bigot out is just too easy, and too loaded. And I 'm in favor on same sex marriage, just pondering over the whole bigoted term being used so easily.
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:23:18 PM
I am a bigot.
You should just be a misanthrope. Less stress figuring out who you should hate.
Quote from: KRonn on August 01, 2012, 08:36:07 PM
Just earlier this year Obama didn't support same sex marriage.
It's a reflection of the times. People didn't know any better back then.
Quote from: Valmy on August 01, 2012, 08:36:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:23:18 PM
I am a bigot.
You should just be a misanthrope. Less stress figuring out who you should hate.
Don't use fancy words with me.
English is just a fourth language.
Quote from: DGuller on August 01, 2012, 08:38:06 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 01, 2012, 08:36:07 PM
Just earlier this year Obama didn't support same sex marriage.
It's a reflection of the times. People didn't know any better back then.
:D
I support diferent sex marriage.
One day this position will be scandalous, with people no longer having children and shit.
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 08:10:04 PM
It's just a simple opinion when you voice that people in a happy, healthy committed relationship shouldn't be able to have their relationship recognized by the state and that God will punish us for such abominations?
You do understand I hope that Christians believe God sets his own policy and lobbying is neither productive or allowed.
QuoteYes, because it is easier to just provide funds to a group that aims to make gay people straight rather than taking a hot second to learn about homosexuality and see that its okay. Sorry but not in this day and age.
With both of those items, one is really just being spiteful.
In his belief system making a gay person straight will improve their situation. That to me is the antithesis of bigotry.
Anti gay marriage activists were just reduced to waiting in long queues to patronize a fast food restaurant in some sort of rearguard solidarity movement. In its own way, it is a sign of progress.
The nearby Chick-fil-a always has long lines if you go there at lunchtime.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 09:15:35 PM
You do understand I hope that Christians believe God sets his own policy and lobbying is neither productive or allowed.
We do? Then why are we always praying to him all the time?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 09:15:35 PM
You do understand I hope that Christians believe God sets his own policy and lobbying is neither productive or allowed.
I have no idea what that has to do with what I said.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 09:15:35 PM
In his belief system making a gay person straight will improve their situation. That to me is the antithesis of bigotry.
I don't. You're forcing people to give up their ways and shouldering them with what you think is better for them. Sort of similar to notions of forcing immigrants to give up their language/culture as that'll help improve their situation.
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 10:28:24 PM
I have no idea what that has to do with what I said.
You're blaming Cathy for his interpretation of God's will, which he has no control over in his own mind.
QuoteI don't. You're forcing people to give up their ways and shouldering them with what you think is better for them. Sort of similar to notions of forcing immigrants to give up their language/culture as that'll help improve their situation.
Leaving aside the coercion issue, when else have we seen bigots doing something that they thought was better for their targets? Did the Nazis try to make Jews better? Did the Klan try to make blacks better? Did bigoted Serbs try to make Bosniaks better?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 11:04:55 PM
You're blaming Cathy for his interpretation of God's will, which he has no control over in his own mind.
But he does. After all, there's no one way to be a Christian.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 11:04:55 PM
Leaving aside the coercion issue, when else have we seen bigots doing something that they thought was better for their targets? Did the Nazis try to make Jews better? Did the Klan try to make blacks better? Did bigoted Serbs try to make Bosniaks better?
So you're just going to ignore my example in favor of your own? Wanting people to not be who they are be that sexual orientation, culture, religion is that not being hostile to those very identities?
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 11:21:10 PM
But he does. After all, there's no one way to be a Christian.
Sure there is. All the others are wrong.
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 11:21:10 PM
But he does. After all, there's no one way to be a Christian.
Members of other churches don't think they can change God's will either.
QuoteSo you're just going to ignore my example in favor of your own? Wanting people to not be who they are be that sexual orientation, culture, religion is that not being hostile to those very identities?
I'm not ignoring your example. I'm pointing out examples that demonstrate the essence of bigotry--ill will towards the other. Wanting to "save" someone from homosexuality does not demonstrate ill will. Wanting to "save" someone from a quote unquote wrong religion does not demonstrate ill will. Pointing out the dire consequences of quote unquote sinful behavior does not demonstrate ill will. Shoving someone in a room and pouring Zyklon B in demonstrates ill will.
I turn on the TV and it is Chick-Fil-A overload on the news channels. So guess what I want to eat again. :weep:
Damn evil chicken. :cry:
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 02, 2012, 07:24:48 AM
I turn on the TV and it is Chick-Fil-A overload on the news channels. So guess what I want to eat again. :weep:
Damn evil chicken. :cry:
The free advertising is delicious.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 02, 2012, 07:24:48 AM
I turn on the TV and it is Chick-Fil-A overload on the news channels. So guess what I want to eat again. :weep:
Damn evil chicken. :cry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpoki4wBwtA
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 02, 2012, 07:24:48 AM
I turn on the TV and it is Chick-Fil-A overload on the news channels. So guess what I want to eat again. :weep:
Damn evil chicken. :cry:
THe one closest to me is infested with cockroaches. I know roaches are everywhere, but most places have the decency to keep them out of sight. Also, the service is bad even by the low standards of fast food.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 12:12:08 AM
Members of other churches don't think they can change God's will either.
They all are defining for themselves what they believe God's will is. And at the very least, as I know you won't agree with that, they are choosing what messages they want to put out there. I know plenty of Christians and none of them say those sorts of statements to me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 12:12:08 AM
I'm not ignoring your example. I'm pointing out examples that demonstrate the essence of bigotry--ill will towards the other. Wanting to "save" someone from homosexuality does not demonstrate ill will. Wanting to "save" someone from a quote unquote wrong religion does not demonstrate ill will. Pointing out the dire consequences of quote unquote sinful behavior does not demonstrate ill will. Shoving someone in a room and pouring Zyklon B in demonstrates ill will.
Just because it is done differently doesn't mean it isn't ill-will. The people are still alive but you've taken steps to eradicate their identity / their existence as a group. Doesn't sound particularly benevolent even if you say they'll be better off. Otherwise, you're saying that Grallon isn't being bigoted when he says that Muslim immigrants need to drop all of their culture and espouse only Western (and presumably Quebecer) sentiments. That seems odd.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 12:12:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 11:21:10 PM
But he does. After all, there's no one way to be a Christian.
Members of other churches don't think they can change God's will either.
QuoteSo you're just going to ignore my example in favor of your own? Wanting people to not be who they are be that sexual orientation, culture, religion is that not being hostile to those very identities?
I'm not ignoring your example. I'm pointing out examples that demonstrate the essence of bigotry--ill will towards the other. Wanting to "save" someone from homosexuality does not demonstrate ill will. Wanting to "save" someone from a quote unquote wrong religion does not demonstrate ill will. Pointing out the dire consequences of quote unquote sinful behavior does not demonstrate ill will. Shoving someone in a room and pouring Zyklon B in demonstrates ill will.
Surely the definition of bigotry can extend beyond putting someone in the zyklon B room. There were lots of christian arguments for slavery, segregation, and banning interracial marriage. I don't think that exempts members of churches that still believe those arguments from a bigot classification, even if in their worldview such things would be the best for everyone in the eyes of god.
Quote from: FunkMonk on August 02, 2012, 07:36:52 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 02, 2012, 07:24:48 AM
I turn on the TV and it is Chick-Fil-A overload on the news channels. So guess what I want to eat again. :weep:
Damn evil chicken. :cry:
The free advertising is delicious.
Very delicious. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 07:51:01 AM
They all are defining for themselves what they believe God's will is. And at the very least, as I know you won't agree with that, they are choosing what messages they want to put out there. I know plenty of Christians and none of them say those sorts of statements to me.
Sure. And which would demonstrate more ill-will, providing you with the information that he believes will save you from damnation or withholding it?
QuoteJust because it is done differently doesn't mean it isn't ill-will. The people are still alive but you've taken steps to eradicate their identity / their existence as a group. Doesn't sound particularly benevolent even if you say they'll be better off. Otherwise, you're saying that Grallon isn't being bigoted when he says that Muslim immigrants need to drop all of their culture and espouse only Western (and presumably Quebecer) sentiments. That seems odd.
Grallon is not interested in reforming anyone. He wants seperation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 09:18:49 AM
Sure. And which would demonstrate more ill-will, providing you with the information that he believes will save you from damnation or withholding it?
:rolleyes:
That's what way to put it but I'd say that providing me with the information demonstrates more ill-will. It isn't like he is spouting a message that no one has the courage to mention. For a variety of reasons, including religious, gays have been made to feel that their homosexuality is wrong. Cathy isn't adding anything to that message other just increasing the echo chamber.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 09:18:49 AM
Grallon is not interested in reforming anyone. He wants seperation.
I think you're wrong. If they were willing to behave as he dictates, I don't see that he'd have any issue with them.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 02, 2012, 07:24:48 AM
I turn on the TV and it is Chick-Fil-A overload on the news channels. So guess what I want to eat again. :weep:
Damn evil chicken. :cry:
I had the day off yesterday to do a couple of last minute projects around the house before company arrives this weekend. Since it's sorta next to Home Depot, Chick-fil-A has been my lunch and/or dinner when I'm doing a home project. So I had that on my mind all morning. Went there yesterday at 11:30 and it was about as packed as the ones they're showing on the news. Had to go back to Home Depot around 2:30 to get some more paint, and it was still packed. So I went to Chipotle instead and enjoyed their brand of self-righteousness :D
Chipotle: we put a bag of salt in our food.
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 09:24:03 AM
For a variety of reasons, including religious, gays have been made to feel that their homosexuality is wrong.
I don't think I've ever come across a gay person that felt this way.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 02, 2012, 09:26:41 AM
Chipotle: we put a bag of salt in our food.
BUT THEIR MEAT IS 100% HORMONE FREE AND THEY ONLY USE PORK FROM PIGS THAT WERE TREATED HUMANELY
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2012, 09:27:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 09:24:03 AM
For a variety of reasons, including religious, gays have been made to feel that their homosexuality is wrong.
I don't think I've ever come across a gay person that felt this way.
That's because they've overcome the shame they've been induced to feel - and thus openly out as homosexual. :P
I most definitely struggled as a child as I couldn't help how I felt but knew other people would dislike me for it.
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2012, 09:25:14 AM
So I went to Chipotle instead and enjoyed their brand of self-righteousness :D
Shame. I went and had a burrito at a local joint that's decent for the East Coast.
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2012, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 02, 2012, 09:26:41 AM
Chipotle: we put a bag of salt in our food.
BUT THEIR MEAT IS 100% HORMONE FREE AND THEY ONLY USE PORK FROM PIGS THAT WERE TREATED HUMANELY
:hmm:
Quote from: The Brain on August 02, 2012, 09:33:17 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 02, 2012, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 02, 2012, 09:26:41 AM
Chipotle: we put a bag of salt in our food.
BUT THEIR MEAT IS 100% HORMONE FREE AND THEY ONLY USE PORK FROM PIGS THAT WERE TREATED HUMANELY
:hmm:
You don't treat animals humanely. :angry:
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 09:24:03 AM
:rolleyes:
That's what way to put it but I'd say that providing me with the information demonstrates more ill-will. It isn't like he is spouting a message that no one has the courage to mention. For a variety of reasons, including religious, gays have been made to feel that their homosexuality is wrong. Cathy isn't adding anything to that message other just increasing the echo chamber.
Bigot means a person who hurts your feelings?
QuoteI think you're wrong. If they were willing to behave as he dictates, I don't see that he'd have any issue with them.
"Not have any issue with them" is a far cry from trying to improve their situation. For their own sake, not his.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 02, 2012, 09:26:41 AM
Chipotle: we put a bag of salt in our food.
No joke, I can't go there without a defibrillator.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 09:37:33 AM
Bigot means a person who hurts your feelings?
No that's not the definition.
Quotea person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Not sure where Cathy is showing tolerance if he's paying money to have gays no longer be gay and it definitely seems like he's devoted to his own opinions and prejudices on whether it is okay to be gay.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 09:37:33 AM
"Not have any issue with them" is a far cry from trying to improve their situation. For their own sake, not his.
And you think Cathy wants to "save" gays out of the goodness of his heart? From his statements sounds a lot more like he thinks toleration of homosexuality is a plague on America. Converting gays = saving America.
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 09:55:46 AM
Not sure where Cathy is showing tolerance if he's paying money to have gays no longer be gay and it definitely seems like he's devoted to his own opinions and prejudices on whether it is okay to be gay.
Clearly he is not showing tolerance. The question is whether he is showing hatred.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 10:01:08 AM
Clearly he is not showing tolerance. The question is whether he is showing hatred.
That's under the especially - though I don't really think that's under debate either considering the thoughts that same sex marriage is destryoing American (also apparently their charitable group doesn't allow gay un-married couples to their retreats either so it is more than just about marriage). I guess one could play hate the sin and not the sinner.
Quote from: KRonn on August 01, 2012, 07:09:13 PM
Well, one guy also has religious views on it, and the other doesn't. He's allowed his beliefs; I strongly disagree with that view on gays and God, but for those who follow religions they have to make the choice one way or the other. When I was more Catholic I didn't believe in everthing, or take things so literally.
I find both your point and Yi's interesting, because the argument seems to be that because it's based on their religious beliefs, it's not actually hateful but a sign of what God wants.
But that can't be right, can it? We'd call a Muslim who thought he should oppress women a bigot even if he genuinely thought God wanted him to do so, wouldn't we?
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 10:07:01 AM
That's under the especially - though I don't really think that's under debate either considering the thoughts that same sex marriage is destryoing American (also apparently their charitable group doesn't allow gay un-married couples to their retreats either so it is more than just about marriage). I guess one could play hate the sin and not the sinner.
That argument seemed a little weak to me; okay, so everyone boycott groups which donate to the boyscouts. We'll wait.
Edit: I'm also not sure if there's a reason to treat religion differently from any other sincerely held belief.
I went to Little Rock High over the weekend, and there's an interesting exhibit. Plenty of people in the 50s genuinely thought there was nothing wrong with black people, it was just best for everyone if the kids were schooled seperately.
It seems to be that, because they thought they had good intentions, they wouldn't be bigots under your view. No?
Quote from: Faeelin on August 02, 2012, 10:20:36 AM
That argument seemed a little weak to me
Well agreed because you're really saying I'm fine with you being you as long as you're willing to not be you. :)
By these standards, there is very little hatred in the world. For example, German nazis rationalized their goal of exterminating Jews by arguing that they belong to a destructive culture that is actively harming the society. So they did not really "hate" Jews, they just followed the tenets of their ideology.
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2012, 10:24:15 AM
By these standards, there is very little hatred in the world. For example, German nazis rationalized their goal of exterminating Jews by arguing that they belong to a destructive culture that is actively harming the society. So they did not really "hate" Jews, they just followed the tenets of their ideology.
Get out of here, idiot. Yi's suggestion is that it isn't hatred as (unlike you and your ilk), Don Cathy isn't calling for anyone to die or be ostracized.
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:45:10 PM
I support diferent sex marriage.
One day this position will be scandalous, with people no longer having children and shit.
I think people will have shit for a long time in the future.
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 10:26:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2012, 10:24:15 AM
By these standards, there is very little hatred in the world. For example, German nazis rationalized their goal of exterminating Jews by arguing that they belong to a destructive culture that is actively harming the society. So they did not really "hate" Jews, they just followed the tenets of their ideology.
Get out of here, idiot. Yi's suggestion is that it isn't hatred as (unlike you and your ilk), Don Cathy isn't calling for anyone to die or be ostracized.
Ok I came to this thread late and did not follow the entire thing through - are you sincerely calling me an idiot (so I have to now insult you back) or are you being sarcastic?
:lol:
Quote from: Faeelin on August 02, 2012, 10:19:56 AM
I find both your point and Yi's interesting, because the argument seems to be that because it's based on their religious beliefs, it's not actually hateful but a sign of what God wants.
But that can't be right, can it? We'd call a Muslim who thought he should oppress women a bigot even if he genuinely thought God wanted him to do so, wouldn't we?
Many times when I've seen the issue portrayed on TV or the movies (I'm thinking in particular about a Law & Order episode on female circumcision) they seem to do a good job of demonstrating the moral conflicts and ambiguities. Is it possible for a father to cut up his daughter out of good intentions? I imagine it is. It's also possible to do it out of bad intentions. And of course just because the father acts out of good intentions doesn't mean we have to agree with his decision.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 01, 2012, 11:04:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2012, 10:28:24 PM
I have no idea what that has to do with what I said.
You're blaming Cathy for his interpretation of God's will, which he has no control over in his own mind.
QuoteI don't. You're forcing people to give up their ways and shouldering them with what you think is better for them. Sort of similar to notions of forcing immigrants to give up their language/culture as that'll help improve their situation.
Leaving aside the coercion issue, when else have we seen bigots doing something that they thought was better for their targets? Did the Nazis try to make Jews better? Did the Klan try to make blacks better? Did bigoted Serbs try to make Bosniaks better?
Are you serious? History is full of examples of people committing evil in the name of helping those they were harming. Native children being taken away from their parents to be raised among the civilized folks. Inquisitors torturing heretics so that their souls could be saved. Etc.
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2012, 10:27:23 AM
Quote from: Siege on August 01, 2012, 08:45:10 PM
I support diferent sex marriage.
One day this position will be scandalous, with people no longer having children and shit.
I think people will have shit for a long time in the future.
They'll probably stop within a century or so after they stop having children though.
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2012, 10:28:35 AM
Ok I came to this thread late and did not follow the entire thing through - are you sincerely calling me an idiot (so I have to now insult you back) or are you being arcastic?
Not sarcastic. When you show up with Marti-fail analogies, I'm going to call you out.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 02, 2012, 10:20:36 AM
I went to Little Rock High over the weekend, and there's an interesting exhibit. Plenty of people in the 50s genuinely thought there was nothing wrong with black people, it was just best for everyone if the kids were schooled seperately.
It seems to be that, because they thought they had good intentions, they wouldn't be bigots under your view. No?
:huh:
That's the view Yi has been espousing.
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2012, 10:33:24 AM
Are you serious? History is full of examples of people committing evil in the name of helping those they were harming. Native children being taken away from their parents to be raised among the civilized folks. Inquisitors torturing heretics so that their souls could be saved. Etc.
Sure (although surely you could have come up with an example with more bite than schooling native children).
And that's the question on the table: is a goal that you disagree with enough to qualify someone as a bigot, or does it take harmful intentions as well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 10:56:09 AM
Sure (although surely you could have come up with an example with more bite than schooling native children).
And that's the question on the table: is a goal that you disagree with enough to qualify someone as a bigot, or does it take harmful intentions as well.
Here's OED's definition:
Quotehaving or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others
Surely there's bigotry based on traits and not just opinions. This would be one. Racial bigotry also.
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 11:09:47 AM
Here's OED's definition:
Quotehaving or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others
Well Christ grabon, by that definition everyone in the world is a bigot. You're bigoted towards Cathy and his ilk.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 10:56:09 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 02, 2012, 10:33:24 AM
Are you serious? History is full of examples of people committing evil in the name of helping those they were harming. Native children being taken away from their parents to be raised among the civilized folks. Inquisitors torturing heretics so that their souls could be saved. Etc.
Sure (although surely you could have come up with an example with more bite than schooling native children).
And that's the question on the table: is a goal that you disagree with enough to qualify someone as a bigot, or does it take harmful intentions as well.
I like how you call forcible removal of children from under their parents care "schooling native children". :D
Your picture should be in the encyclopedia next to "intellectual dishonesty". :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 11:16:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 11:09:47 AM
Here's OED's definition:
Quotehaving or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others
Well Christ grabon, by that definition everyone in the world is a bigot. You're bigoted towards Cathy and his ilk.
I was writing up a post to MiM but I think it is the obstinate bit that clinches it...as that seems to suggest that one's own beliefs are irrational. Medical science seems to be firmly on the side that you can't "convert" gays - so I don't think its obstinate to suggest that it'd be harmful to try and get rid of homosexuality.
Also, is it prejudice? I've heard the arguments of Cathy and his ilk and dismissed them as they don't fit the science.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 10:56:09 AM
Sure (although surely you could have come up with an example with more bite than schooling native children).
Oh is that what the Australian PM was apologizing for? Providing education?
Quote from: Valmy on August 02, 2012, 11:23:05 AM
Oh is that what the Australian PM was apologizing for? Providing education?
Essentially. The manner of the education and the socialization that attaches to education and the assumption that it was superior to that being provided by the parents.
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 11:22:15 AM
I was writing up a post to MiM but I think it is the obstinate bit that clinches it...as that seems to suggest that one's own beliefs are irrational. Medical science seems to be firmly on the side that you can't "convert" gays - so I don't think its obstinate to suggest that it'd be harmful to try and get rid of homosexuality.
Also, is it prejudice? I've heard the arguments of Cathy and his ilk and dismissed them as they don't fit the science.
This has potential, but one problem right off the bat is that religious views are by definition not susceptible to scientific proofs.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 02, 2012, 11:12:43 AM
Surely there's bigotry based on traits and not just opinions. This would be one. Racial bigotry also.
This is perhaps unclear. What I mean is that gay is a trait. It's not gay dude's opinion that he's gay or a black guy's opinion that he black. It's who they are. A bigot holds his bigoted opinions based on the other's traits.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 02, 2012, 11:36:45 AM
This is perhaps unclear. What I mean is that gay is a trait. It's not gay dude's opinion that he's gay or a black guy's opinion that he black. It's who they are. A bigot holds his bigoted opinions based on the other's traits.
But the opinion held is that there is a problem with said trait, no?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 11:33:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 11:22:15 AM
I was writing up a post to MiM but I think it is the obstinate bit that clinches it...as that seems to suggest that one's own beliefs are irrational. Medical science seems to be firmly on the side that you can't "convert" gays - so I don't think its obstinate to suggest that it'd be harmful to try and get rid of homosexuality.
Also, is it prejudice? I've heard the arguments of Cathy and his ilk and dismissed them as they don't fit the science.
This has potential, but one problem right off the bat is that religious views are by definition not susceptible to scientific proofs.
I'm not sure if one needs to go down that rabbit-hole.
Here we have a case of a man who says that Americans are arrogant and our attempts to legitimize homosexuality are destroying our nation. Now there already exist nations that allow homosexual unions and they don't seem destroyed. Similarly there are nations that don't allow homosexual unions that are much worse off than America. Where is the evidence to suggest then that America is being destroyed by homosexual unions?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 11:32:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 02, 2012, 11:23:05 AM
Oh is that what the Australian PM was apologizing for? Providing education?
Essentially. The manner of the education and the socialization that attaches to education and the assumption that it was superior to that being provided by the parents.
Native residential schooling is a complex one.
As Yi points out it was done with good intentions - they wanted to provide a proper education for these children. And some did indeed get good educations and advanced in the world.
On the other hand, it was their explicit goal to beat the "indianness" out of them. Corporal punishment for speaking their language, restricting family visits. And there were few to no opportunities to them once they graduated (since there was plenty of anti-native prejudice), so they wound up returning to their home community alienated from their family - oh and never having learned any parenting skills.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 10:56:09 AMAnd that's the question on the table: is a goal that you disagree with enough to qualify someone as a bigot, or does it take harmful intentions as well.
If the goal is predicated on a group of people being inferior to you because you (or your god) disapproves of them, then yes it is bigoted; whether the intentions are harmful or not.
So, if you believe gays or black people or half-Korean people or Americans or the French or women are inferior or harmful to society or offensive to god, then you are a bigot. Now, there's a difference in virulence of the bigotry of course, wanting them to "keep separate, not make a fuss so I can pretend they don't exist" is less virulent than wanting them all "re-educated and/ subjugated, and thoroughly integrated so they don't offend me anymore," which again is less virulent than wanting them all killed. But it's all bigotry.
Now, if the goal I disagree with is political but not identity based, then it's not bigotry. I can oppose building a bridge that you favour building, and neither of our positions are bigoted. Even if either or both of us are so convinced of our righteousness that we are willing to endorse murder to support our opinions, we are not bigots (though we are other kinds of bad).
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 11:46:00 AM
Here we have a case of a man who says that Americans are arrogant and our attempts to legitimize homosexuality are destroying our nation. Now there already exist nations that allow homosexual unions and they don't seem destroyed. Similarly there are nations that don't allow homosexual unions that are much worse off than America. Where is the evidence to suggest then that America is being destroyed by homosexual unions?
Anyone who says that gay marriage will "destroy" a nation is using wildly overblown rhetoric.
However - any change in a society that results from recognizing gay marriage is going to take a long time to play out. It's only within the last 10 years that any country has recognized it. Let's just say we don't know what the effects (if any) of recognizing gay marriage might be...
Quote from: Valmy on August 02, 2012, 11:23:05 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 10:56:09 AM
Sure (although surely you could have come up with an example with more bite than schooling native children).
Oh is that what the Australian PM was apologizing for? Providing education?
The Canadian government apologized for the residential schools, I believe.
"Providing education" in this context meant forcibly removing Native children from their parents at a young age, putting them in Christian curriculum schools where they were beaten if they as much as spoke their own language. On top of that, of course, there was the kind of sexual abuse of children that is now unsurprising to us in the context of Christian Brothers looking after vulnerable children with little oversight.
I suspect the Australian situation is fairly similar.
Even without the sexual abuse, I'd consider the residential schools bigoted institutions however well-intentioned they were thought to be. When your good intention is to eradicate a culture, it's bigoted, no matter how much you believe god is on your side.
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 11:52:33 AM
However - any change in a society that results from recognizing gay marriage is going to take a long time to play out. It's only within the last 10 years that any country has recognized it. Let's just say we don't know what the effects (if any) of recognizing gay marriage might be...
Can you give me some theoretical negatives?
Gay evolution.
I concur with BB that the effects of gay marriage is going to play out over decades.
I don't see any possible negatives that beyond ephemeral opinion-based ones that aren't within the purview of government action in a liberal (or "free" for those whom the word "liberal" is too loaded) society.
Quote from: Jacob on August 02, 2012, 11:58:01 AM
I concur with BB that the effects of gay marriage is going to play out over decades.
Well, of course, it is a constantly evolving situation. :)
But yeah I asked my question as a rational thought against would be the potential negatives that might come along with such a move. I'm trying to get my head around what those potential negatives could be.
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 11:53:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 11:52:33 AM
However - any change in a society that results from recognizing gay marriage is going to take a long time to play out. It's only within the last 10 years that any country has recognized it. Let's just say we don't know what the effects (if any) of recognizing gay marriage might be...
Can you give me some theoretical negatives?
Just a general decline in respect for the concept of marriage and the traditional family. More short-term cohabitation, more single parents, less children generally. Which are all trends that have already been happening - in particular in places like Scandiweenia and Quebec.
Now I've also heard it suggested that recognizing gay marriage helps to fight those trends - that maybe it will help strengthen the notion of marriage in society.
We'll see - but not in the short term.
What's the theory behind these negatives?
Quote from: Jacob on August 02, 2012, 11:48:01 AM
If the goal is predicated on a group of people being inferior to you because you (or your god) disapproves of them, then yes it is bigoted; whether the intentions are harmful or not.
So, if you believe gays or black people or half-Korean people or Americans or the French or women are inferior or harmful to society or offensive to god, then you are a bigot. Now, there's a difference in virulence of the bigotry of course, wanting them to "keep separate, not make a fuss so I can pretend they don't exist" is less virulent than wanting them all "re-educated and/ subjugated, and thoroughly integrated so they don't offend me anymore," which again is less virulent than wanting them all killed. But it's all bigotry.
Now, if the goal I disagree with is political but not identity based, then it's not bigotry. I can oppose building a bridge that you favour building, and neither of our positions are bigoted. Even if either or both of us are so convinced of our righteousness that we are willing to endorse murder to support our opinions, we are not bigots (though we are other kinds of bad).
How about things like drug and alcohol abuse? Unfit parents? Inbreeding? Polygamy? We as a society pass negative judgements all the time.
Quote from: Barrister on August 02, 2012, 12:01:00 PM
Just a general decline in respect for the concept of marriage and the traditional family. More short-term cohabitation, more single parents, less children generally. Which are all trends that have already been happening - in particular in places like Scandiweenia and Quebec.
Now I've also heard it suggested that recognizing gay marriage helps to fight those trends - that maybe it will help strengthen the notion of marriage in society.
Well yes I'm curious on that. More people getting married erodes respect for the concept of marriage? Isn't the concept of marriage eroding when there are people who want to get married but can't - and thus have to come up with their own concepts? Why exactly would short-term cohabitation and single parent households get up when more couples are getting bound together?
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 11:53:25 AM
Can you give me some theoretical negatives?
It would obviously suck if The Almighty pelted us with locusts and fire.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 12:06:39 PMHow about things like drug and alcohol abuse? Unfit parents? Inbreeding? Polygamy? We as a society pass negative judgements all the time.
What about them?
Are you wondering which groups of people it's okay to judge for what they are, and try to change?
I'd say we can both agree that it's okay to judge thieves and rapists, and want to do whatever we can to prevent them from doing the things that makes them thieves and rapists.
Similarly, I think we can both agree that it's not okay to judge someone for belonging to a particular cultural group while living in a particular location, and that it's not okay to to prevent them for doing so.
So the question is, do we put gay people marrying into the same category as thieves and rapists, or into the category as a black guy living in a predominantly white neighbourhood?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 12:38:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 11:53:25 AM
Can you give me some theoretical negatives?
It would obviously suck if The Almighty pelted us with locusts and fire.
If The Almighty does so, then The Almighty is a bigot; as are those who give into that kind of bullying.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 12:38:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 11:53:25 AM
Can you give me some theoretical negatives?
It would obviously suck if The Almighty pelted us with locusts and fire.
Why would he only punish us? Why hasn't he already thrown down on other nations that have adopted such measures?
Quote from: Jacob on August 02, 2012, 12:44:21 PM
What about them?
Are you wondering which groups of people it's okay to judge for what they are, and try to change?
I'd say we can both agree that it's okay to judge thieves and rapists, and want to do whatever we can to prevent them from doing the things that makes them thieves and rapists.
Similarly, I think we can both agree that it's not okay to judge someone for belonging to a particular cultural group while living in a particular location, and that it's not okay to to prevent them for doing so.
So the question is, do we put gay people marrying into the same category as thieves and rapists, or into the category as a black guy living in a predominantly white neighbourhood?
OK, you seem to be making a distinction between condemning choices and condemning what a person is born with. I can possibly live with this distinction.
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 12:46:01 PM
Why would he only punish us? Why hasn't he already thrown down on other nations that have adopted such measures?
Why are you asking me? I don't even believe in God. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 12:26:49 PM
Well yes I'm curious on that. More people getting married erodes respect for the concept of marriage?
Well, sure. You wouldn't want just
anyone getting married. If even some gays can do it, it ruins it for the rest of us. After all, you wouldn't want to be a member of a club that let just anyone in, would you? Let in the Jews and the Blacks and the whole thing becomes pointless. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 12:56:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 12:46:01 PM
Why would he only punish us? Why hasn't he already thrown down on other nations that have adopted such measures?
Why are you asking me? I don't even believe in God. :huh:
:o We have atheists on Languish?
I'm pretty sure that what we think marriage is and what Mr. CFA thinks it is are different things. So the premise of the question is suspect from the beginning. It's difficult to find common ground.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 12:56:06 PM
Why are you asking me? I don't even believe in God. :huh:
Because you postulated that it is a possible negative effect. Seems like it would only make sense to worry about that if a) we were treading on virgin ground (tee-hee) or b) had seen similar terrible things happen sometime after other countries legalized gay marriage.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 02, 2012, 01:07:40 PM
I'm pretty sure that what we think marriage is and what Mr. CFA thinks it is are different things. So the premise of the question is suspect from the beginning. It's difficult to find common ground.
What question is suspect?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 12:52:46 PMOK, you seem to be making a distinction between condemning choices and condemning what a person is born with. I can possibly live with this distinction.
Excellent.
Quote from: DGuller on August 02, 2012, 01:03:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 12:56:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 12:46:01 PM
Why would he only punish us? Why hasn't he already thrown down on other nations that have adopted such measures?
Why are you asking me? I don't even believe in God. :huh:
:o We have atheists on Languish?
Even preacher's kids are atheists here :weep:
Quote from: Jacob on August 02, 2012, 01:24:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 12:52:46 PMOK, you seem to be making a distinction between condemning choices and condemning what a person is born with. I can possibly live with this distinction.
Excellent.
Isn't it a choice to get gay married? :(
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 01:44:09 PMIsn't it a choice to get gay married? :(
Well yes, and it's also a choice for a black person to go to a specific school.
So just like it's bigoted to try to keep black people out of specific schools, it's bigoted to try to prevent gay people from getting married.
Quote from: Jacob on August 02, 2012, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 01:44:09 PMIsn't it a choice to get gay married? :(
Well yes, and it's also a choice for a black person to go to a specific school.
So just like it's bigoted to try to keep black people out of specific schools, it's bigoted to try to prevent gay people from getting married.
Fair though one could conceivably not act on one's homosexual urges which doesn't really have an equivalent as a black person, does it?
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 01:49:48 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 02, 2012, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 01:44:09 PMIsn't it a choice to get gay married? :(
Well yes, and it's also a choice for a black person to go to a specific school.
So just like it's bigoted to try to keep black people out of specific schools, it's bigoted to try to prevent gay people from getting married.
Fair though one could conceivably not act on one's homosexual urges which doesn't really have an equivalent as a black person, does it?
:zipped:
Quote from: The Brain on August 02, 2012, 01:55:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 01:49:48 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 02, 2012, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 01:44:09 PMIsn't it a choice to get gay married? :(
Well yes, and it's also a choice for a black person to go to a specific school.
So just like it's bigoted to try to keep black people out of specific schools, it's bigoted to try to prevent gay people from getting married.
Fair though one could conceivably not act on one's homosexual urges which doesn't really have an equivalent as a black person, does it?
:zipped:
You are right. You'd better not touch that one. :grr:
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 01:49:48 PMFair though one could conceivably not act on one's homosexual urges which doesn't really have an equivalent as a black person, does it?
So?
Quote from: Jacob on August 02, 2012, 03:15:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 01:49:48 PMFair though one could conceivably not act on one's homosexual urges which doesn't really have an equivalent as a black person, does it?
So?
Well then I don't think the whole actions versus identity thing is so clear...as I believe their objection is to homosexual acts (something one can control) and not that a homosexual exists (not within a person's control). A homosexual is still a homosexual even when not acting on it.
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 03:21:45 PMWell then I don't think the whole actions versus identity thing is so clear...as I believe their objection is to homosexual acts (something one can control) and not that a homosexual exists (not within a person's control). A homosexual is still a homosexual even when not acting on it.
I'm not really that interested in the equivocation behind the bigotry, to be honest. That said, opposition to "homesexual acts" isn't really any less bigoted.
Quote from: Jacob on August 02, 2012, 03:27:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 03:21:45 PMWell then I don't think the whole actions versus identity thing is so clear...as I believe their objection is to homosexual acts (something one can control) and not that a homosexual exists (not within a person's control). A homosexual is still a homosexual even when not acting on it.
I'm not really that interested in the equivocation behind the bigotry, to be honest. That said, opposition to "homesexual acts" isn't really any less bigoted.
I'm not really either - I'm just saying that you and Yi seemed to come to an agreement on a division that doesn't seem particularly clear to me.
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 03:31:19 PMI'm not really either - I'm just saying that you and Yi seemed to come to an agreement on a division that doesn't seem particularly clear to me.
Ah, I see.
It wasn't a big philosophical agreement on a profound truth. I was just pleased that Yi could see a way in which he'd consider the anti-gay bigots bigots.
Quote from: Jacob on August 02, 2012, 03:40:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 03:31:19 PMI'm not really either - I'm just saying that you and Yi seemed to come to an agreement on a division that doesn't seem particularly clear to me.
Ah, I see.
It wasn't a big philosophical agreement on a profound truth. I was just pleased that Yi could see a way in which he'd consider the anti-gay bigots bigots.
And here I thought you were providing me with profound truths for free. But nah, gotcha. :P
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 03:43:57 PMAnd here I thought you were providing me with profound truths for free. But nah, gotcha. :P
If you got them for free, you'd probably discard them as having no value :buddha:
Quote from: Jacob on August 02, 2012, 04:22:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 03:43:57 PMAnd here I thought you were providing me with profound truths for free. But nah, gotcha. :P
If you got them for free, you'd probably discard them as having no value :buddha:
:yes:
QuoteThe best things in life are free
But you can give them to the birds and bees
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 03:21:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 02, 2012, 03:15:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 01:49:48 PMFair though one could conceivably not act on one's homosexual urges which doesn't really have an equivalent as a black person, does it?
So?
Well then I don't think the whole actions versus identity thing is so clear...as I believe their objection is to homosexual acts (something one can control) and not that a homosexual exists (not within a person's control). A homosexual is still a homosexual even when not acting on it.
Oddly, many anti-gay folks appear to take the position that it is a total choice whether or not to be homosexual or heterosexual - and that if society doesn't work hard to make gay lives a living hell, lots of people would be attracted to the gay choice. :D
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2012, 04:28:50 PM
Oddly, many anti-gay folks appear to take the position that it is a total choice whether or not to be homosexual or heterosexual - and that if society doesn't work hard to make gay lives a living hell, lots of people would be attracted to the gay choice. :D
Yes, that is very bizarre.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 02, 2012, 10:19:56 AM
Quote from: KRonn on August 01, 2012, 07:09:13 PM
Well, one guy also has religious views on it, and the other doesn't. He's allowed his beliefs; I strongly disagree with that view on gays and God, but for those who follow religions they have to make the choice one way or the other. When I was more Catholic I didn't believe in everthing, or take things so literally.
I find both your point and Yi's interesting, because the argument seems to be that because it's based on their religious beliefs, it's not actually hateful but a sign of what God wants.
But that can't be right, can it? We'd call a Muslim who thought he should oppress women a bigot even if he genuinely thought God wanted him to do so, wouldn't we?
I tend to agree with you on the religious stuff. I can't condone the anti-gay stuff by religions. My contention is that the CEO of the company didn't agree with same sex marriage, and I feel he can have that view. If he's a bigot for that, I don't know. I think that can go either way because some people just feel that marriage is a man and a woman, more as a legal and social construct.
Not necessarily out of being a bigot towards gays. Others will argue that having that view is bigoted automatically, and I'm not sure it is. I can see the points both ways.
Wow, lotsa pages trying to define if bigotry is, in fact, bigotry.
It is.
Quote from: KRonn on August 02, 2012, 06:31:42 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 02, 2012, 10:19:56 AM
Quote from: KRonn on August 01, 2012, 07:09:13 PM
Well, one guy also has religious views on it, and the other doesn't. He's allowed his beliefs; I strongly disagree with that view on gays and God, but for those who follow religions they have to make the choice one way or the other. When I was more Catholic I didn't believe in everthing, or take things so literally.
I find both your point and Yi's interesting, because the argument seems to be that because it's based on their religious beliefs, it's not actually hateful but a sign of what God wants.
But that can't be right, can it? We'd call a Muslim who thought he should oppress women a bigot even if he genuinely thought God wanted him to do so, wouldn't we?
I tend to agree with you on the religious stuff. I can't condone the anti-gay stuff by religions. My contention is that the CEO of the company didn't agree with same sex marriage, and I feel he can have that view. If he's a bigot for that, I don't know. I think that can go either way because some people just feel that marriage is a man and a woman, more as a legal and social construct.
Not necessarily out of being a bigot towards gays. Others will argue that having that view is bigoted automatically, and I'm not sure it is. I can see the points both ways.
I think you're missing that he's a CEO who runs a company that also donates money to explicitly anti-gay groups. If that's not bigotry...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 02, 2012, 06:33:22 PM
Wow, lotsa pages trying to define if bigotry is, in fact, bigotry.
It is.
I think it it always worthwhile to go through the intellectual exercise of working through why.
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 06:45:02 PM
I think it it always worthwhile to go through the intellectual exercise of working through why.
Ill will or intent or no, I don't buy the "White Man's Burden" argument of benign non-bigotry, though.
Let's look at Neil's comment about "socially unacceptable groups." Actually, pedophilia is vilified on a very rational basis: the safety concern for minors, considering one child's harm due to pedophilia can easily ripple outward or downstream toward future generations.
"The Bible says it's wrong" doesn't constitute a rational safety concern for a segment of the population. So why don't we try this for a definition of bigotry? Vilification of a segment of the population without a reasonable concern for the safety of those interacting with that segment.
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 06:44:21 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 02, 2012, 06:31:42 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 02, 2012, 10:19:56 AM
Quote from: KRonn on August 01, 2012, 07:09:13 PM
Well, one guy also has religious views on it, and the other doesn't. He's allowed his beliefs; I strongly disagree with that view on gays and God, but for those who follow religions they have to make the choice one way or the other. When I was more Catholic I didn't believe in everthing, or take things so literally.
I find both your point and Yi's interesting, because the argument seems to be that because it's based on their religious beliefs, it's not actually hateful but a sign of what God wants.
But that can't be right, can it? We'd call a Muslim who thought he should oppress women a bigot even if he genuinely thought God wanted him to do so, wouldn't we?
I tend to agree with you on the religious stuff. I can't condone the anti-gay stuff by religions. My contention is that the CEO of the company didn't agree with same sex marriage, and I feel he can have that view. If he's a bigot for that, I don't know. I think that can go either way because some people just feel that marriage is a man and a woman, more as a legal and social construct.
Not necessarily out of being a bigot towards gays. Others will argue that having that view is bigoted automatically, and I'm not sure it is. I can see the points both ways.
I think you're missing that he's a CEO who runs a company that also donates money to explicitly anti-gay groups. If that's not bigotry...
The anti gay group that I'm aware of is one that tries to counsel gays to end being gay. Dumb idea, I agree.
Quote from: KRonn on August 02, 2012, 08:57:51 PM
The anti gay group that I'm aware of is one that tries to counsel gays to end being gay. Dumb idea, I agree.
There's more than that. Family Research Council was one and they spout about how homosexuality is dangerous to children like pedophilia...in fact pedophilia is largely an issue of gay men.
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 09:07:36 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 02, 2012, 08:57:51 PM
The anti gay group that I'm aware of is one that tries to counsel gays to end being gay. Dumb idea, I agree.
There's more than that. Family Research Council was one and they spout about how homosexuality is dangerous to children like pedophilia...in fact pedophilia is largely an issue of gay men.
Is that a group he supports? Sheesh, that's nasty. Amazing that people still have those ideas with all the time gone by, and the info out there. That's disturbing.
They donated money to them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 10:01:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 09:55:46 AM
Not sure where Cathy is showing tolerance if he's paying money to have gays no longer be gay and it definitely seems like he's devoted to his own opinions and prejudices on whether it is okay to be gay.
Clearly he is not showing tolerance. The question is whether he is showing hatred.
Even the first part is debatable. He's donating money to an organization that attempts to turn gays straight, but I assume that they're only working with gays who are there voluntarily? No one is being forced into their program, right? And he's not refusing to serve gays in his restaurants, correct?
You realize that's one organization that he funds? Just on the last page I pointed out another group they donated to. Besides, if a gay man decides he is going to seek pseudo-therapy to stop being gay - how much of that is free will and how much of that is a desire to avoid shame?
CSM: Chick-fil-A sets sales record amid controversy (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0802/Chick-fil-A-sets-sales-record-amid-controversy-video) :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2012, 04:28:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 03:21:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 02, 2012, 03:15:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 01:49:48 PMFair though one could conceivably not act on one's homosexual urges which doesn't really have an equivalent as a black person, does it?
So?
Well then I don't think the whole actions versus identity thing is so clear...as I believe their objection is to homosexual acts (something one can control) and not that a homosexual exists (not within a person's control). A homosexual is still a homosexual even when not acting on it.
Oddly, many anti-gay folks appear to take the position that it is a total choice whether or not to be homosexual or heterosexual - and that if society doesn't work hard to make gay lives a living hell, lots of people would be attracted to the gay choice. :D
I know it's hack to say that, but such people seem very likely to be homosexual or at least bisexual themselves, and are just projecting their own "choice" by arguing others can also grit their teeth, close their eyes, and splurge that horrible, disgusting gaping hole with their semen in the hope of creating little zygote-babies.
Incidentally, last Newsroom episode had a garbon being torn a new asshole by Jeff Daniels. It was glorious.
I love the character Jeff Daniels plays. :cool:
Quote from: dps on August 02, 2012, 10:17:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 10:01:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 09:55:46 AM
Not sure where Cathy is showing tolerance if he's paying money to have gays no longer be gay and it definitely seems like he's devoted to his own opinions and prejudices on whether it is okay to be gay.
Clearly he is not showing tolerance. The question is whether he is showing hatred.
Even the first part is debatable. He's donating money to an organization that attempts to turn gays straight, but I assume that they're only working with gays who are there voluntarily? No one is being forced into their program, right? And he's not refusing to serve gays in his restaurants, correct?
Parents force their children into their program. These children end up with severe trauma and some of them commit suicides. Reality is more complex than you may think.
And, as garbon pointed out, there are groups he founds that argue that gays should be legally prevented from being able to work in certain professions. You are fine with that?
Quote from: Martinus on August 03, 2012, 12:24:45 AM
Quote from: dps on August 02, 2012, 10:17:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 02, 2012, 10:01:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 02, 2012, 09:55:46 AM
Not sure where Cathy is showing tolerance if he's paying money to have gays no longer be gay and it definitely seems like he's devoted to his own opinions and prejudices on whether it is okay to be gay.
Clearly he is not showing tolerance. The question is whether he is showing hatred.
Even the first part is debatable. He's donating money to an organization that attempts to turn gays straight, but I assume that they're only working with gays who are there voluntarily? No one is being forced into their program, right? And he's not refusing to serve gays in his restaurants, correct?
Parents force their children into their program. These children end up with severe trauma and some of them commit suicides. Reality is more complex than you may think.
Uhm, are we talking adults or children here?
QuoteAnd, as garbon pointed out, there are groups he founds that argue that gays should be legally prevented from being able to work in certain professions. You are fine with that?
No.
Enjoy! A Mart goes through a Drive-Thru......
http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphilosophistry.com%2Farchives%2Fscans%2F2010%2Flol-face.jpg&hash=61beffdd21f1794a9d8a3e60c8c5d197b8d2442a)
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 03, 2012, 06:46:47 AM
Enjoy! A Mart goes through a Drive-Thru......
http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphilosophistry.com%2Farchives%2Fscans%2F2010%2Flol-face.jpg&hash=61beffdd21f1794a9d8a3e60c8c5d197b8d2442a)
LOL
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 03, 2012, 06:46:47 AM
Enjoy! A Mart goes through a Drive-Thru......
http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8
That is the best story to come out of this whole situation yet. Fucking awesome.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 03, 2012, 07:11:59 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 03, 2012, 06:46:47 AM
Enjoy! A Mart goes through a Drive-Thru......
http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8
That is the best story to come out of this whole situation yet. Fucking awesome.
The comments are usually better than the articles with stories like this.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 03, 2012, 07:53:48 AM
The comments are usually better than the articles with stories like this.
You mean these? :lol:
QuoteComment flagged as offensive.
Comment flagged as offensive.
Comment flagged as offensive.
Comment flagged as offensive.
Comment flagged as offensive.
Comment flagged as offensive.
Quote from: dps on August 03, 2012, 12:49:12 AM
Uhm, are we talking adults or children here?
He is talking about 40 year olds whose 70 year old parents kidnap them and force them to go to anti-gay camp at knife point.
Ok he is probably talking about teens here...unless you can detect gay in little kids :hmm:
I have to applaud Mart for posting what might be the most misogynistic post in all of Languish history which is quite an achievement. Sorry Ed.
Quote from: Valmy on August 03, 2012, 08:07:42 AM
Ok he is probably talking about teens here...unless you can detect gay in little kids :hmm:
Yeah, like they play with dolls or something, that could be a way to diagnose them.
I mean, I had action figures and dolls, too; but my 1 Adam 12 Squad Car Playset officers used to pull over my sister's Barbie Corvette and rape the Barbies under the color of authority.
But I suppose that's an entirely different diagnosis.
Quote from: Valmy on August 03, 2012, 08:09:51 AM
I have to applaud Mart for posting what might be the most misogynistic post in all of Languish history which is quite an achievement. Sorry Ed.
If you mean this one:
QuoteI know it's hack to say that, but such people seem very likely to be homosexual or at least bisexual themselves, and are just projecting their own "choice" by arguing others can also grit their teeth, close their eyes, and splurge that horrible, disgusting gaping hole with their semen in the hope of creating little zygote-babies.
Then Grallon has matched it at least a dozen times.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 03, 2012, 08:18:09 AM
Then Grallon has matched it at least a dozen times.
Yeah where is he? I miss the hateful old bastard.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 03, 2012, 08:06:34 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 03, 2012, 07:53:48 AM
The comments are usually better than the articles with stories like this.
You mean these? :lol:
QuoteComment flagged as offensive.
Comment flagged as offensive.
Comment flagged as offensive.
Comment flagged as offensive.
Comment flagged as offensive.
Comment flagged as offensive.
There are many other gems.
Quote from: Valmy on August 03, 2012, 08:07:42 AM
Ok he is probably talking about teens here...unless you can detect gay in little kids :hmm:
My parents could have detected it if I thought it was something okay to bring up - or had watched me looking at the male lifeguards at swimming lessons. :D
Quote from: garbon on August 03, 2012, 08:24:11 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 03, 2012, 08:07:42 AM
Ok he is probably talking about teens here...unless you can detect gay in little kids :hmm:
My parents could have detected it if I thought it was something okay to bring up - or had watched me looking at the male lifeguards at swimming lessons. :D
Now I won't be able to look at male lifeguards the same ever again. :x
Quote from: Valmy on August 03, 2012, 08:09:51 AM
I have to applaud Mart for posting what might be the most misogynistic post in all of Languish history which is quite an achievement. Sorry Ed.
WHAT THE FUCK
Do you look at them like they're David Hasselhoff running in slow motion?
This is for Brain and Garbon, though Ed can answer if he likes.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 03, 2012, 08:31:41 AM
Do you look at them like they're David Hasselhoff running in slow motion?
This is for Brain and Garbon, though Ed can answer if he likes.
Not anymore.
I look at female lifeguards at the pool. The teenage female lifeguards.
And now fahdiz can have his chicken guilt-free. Enjoy: http://www.chickenoffset.com/
The bigotry makes the chicken more delicious.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 03, 2012, 08:31:41 AM
Do you look at them like they're David Hasselhoff running in slow motion?
This is for Brain and Garbon, though Ed can answer if he likes.
:huh:
No, I looked at them like the were men stripping naked in the locker room.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 03, 2012, 07:11:59 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 03, 2012, 06:46:47 AM
Enjoy! A Mart goes through a Drive-Thru......
http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8
That is the best story to come out of this whole situation yet. Fucking awesome.
I wonder why that dude is pretending to be straight?
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 13, 2012, 06:48:08 PM
The bigotry makes the chicken more delicious.
This weekend I had to swing by a mall to go to a Mens Wearhouse to get updated suit measurements for my bro's wedding. I remembered there was a Chick-Fi-A in the food court so I wanted to eat lunch there because a) the chicken is delicious, and b) so are Mart's tears.
Then I got there and remembered it was Sunday.
http://khaaan.com/ (http://khaaan.com/)
I almost went to a Chick-Fil-A on my way back from Philly but it was a Sunday.
Btw, this story makes me feel proud to be an American.
http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/entrepreneurs/2012/08/13/chick-felay-unfortunate-mix-up/
QuoteCanadian Chick-Felay Feels Backlash From Chick-fil-A's Gay Marriage Firestorm
Talk about an unfortunate mix-up. A Canadian franchise felt the wrath of some angry protesters thanks to its' showrunner's stance on gay marriage. The only problem was, the company's president and CEO never took one.
Chick-Felay, a Canadian chicken restaurant with four locations in Toronto, was on the receiving end of some confusing customer interaction thanks to its name, which is strikingly similar to the U.S.-based chain, Chick-fil-A. The U.S.-based Chick-fil-A has been in the national spotlight as of late after its president and CEO Dan Cathy spoke out against gay marriage. The Wall Street Journal reported Chick-Felay employees were unsure of why customers were both protesting and praising the staff's "stand."
"The servers were like, 'What's going on?', " Chick-Felay founder and CEO Nabeel Khan told the Wall Street Journal. "I didn't have any idea what they were talking about. I was selling chicken."
Chick-Felay won't be speaking out on any issues in the near future, and has only chicken in common with Chick-fil-A. Khan told the paper he is not in the business of politics.
Khan did not respond to requests for comment from FOXBusiness.com.