|
On July 27 2012 05:30 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 04:57 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 03:09 Fyrewolf wrote:On July 27 2012 03:03 meadbert wrote:On July 27 2012 02:54 Praetorial wrote:
It's discrimination based on the fact that the chain donates money to hateful causes.
Call it what you will, it's justified. Is the killing of hundreds of thousands of unborn children a hateful cause? Plenty of people would say so, but that does not mean that mayors can kick any company out of town that donates to planned parenthood. NOTE: Do not derail into pro-life/pro-choice thread. I am actually pro-choice anyway, so you would only be preaching to choir. My point is that what seems hateful to one person may not seem that way to another. Also, just because a policy you support hurts someone does not mean you hate. Cathy may be against Gay marriage without hating gay people just as many people are pro-choice without hating unborn children. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's quite another to actively try to enforce that opinion on others when it includes denying others their rights. Donating to planned parenthood doesn't deny anybody rights, merely helps some who chose to excersice their right to an abortion(among the many many other services they offer). Donating to groups that fight to keep gays from getting married helps deny rights to people who should have them. Some might argue that these groups deny the unborn the right to live. Or to a lesser extent, children who are placed into adoption the right to have a mom and a dad. You are on ridiculously shaky logical ground. The rights you believe in are the only ones that matter? Rights that are not enforceable are meaningless. Right to have a mom and dad? There are orphans everywhere. Who are they gonna enforce that right against? God?
Internet discussions: we hop around glancing at posts and responding only to the weak/easily dispatched parts of their arguments.
End result: nothing gets done.
|
On July 27 2012 05:34 Ryalnos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 05:30 S_SienZ wrote:On July 27 2012 04:57 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 03:09 Fyrewolf wrote:On July 27 2012 03:03 meadbert wrote:On July 27 2012 02:54 Praetorial wrote:
It's discrimination based on the fact that the chain donates money to hateful causes.
Call it what you will, it's justified. Is the killing of hundreds of thousands of unborn children a hateful cause? Plenty of people would say so, but that does not mean that mayors can kick any company out of town that donates to planned parenthood. NOTE: Do not derail into pro-life/pro-choice thread. I am actually pro-choice anyway, so you would only be preaching to choir. My point is that what seems hateful to one person may not seem that way to another. Also, just because a policy you support hurts someone does not mean you hate. Cathy may be against Gay marriage without hating gay people just as many people are pro-choice without hating unborn children. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's quite another to actively try to enforce that opinion on others when it includes denying others their rights. Donating to planned parenthood doesn't deny anybody rights, merely helps some who chose to excersice their right to an abortion(among the many many other services they offer). Donating to groups that fight to keep gays from getting married helps deny rights to people who should have them. Some might argue that these groups deny the unborn the right to live. Or to a lesser extent, children who are placed into adoption the right to have a mom and a dad. You are on ridiculously shaky logical ground. The rights you believe in are the only ones that matter? Rights that are not enforceable are meaningless. Right to have a mom and dad? There are orphans everywhere. Who are they gonna enforce that right against? God? Internet discussions: we hop around glancing at posts and responding only to the weak/easily dispatched parts of their arguments. End result: nothing gets done.
Well, the unborn right to live thing I sorta addressed in an earlier post and I didn't feel like repeating myself.
More directly to your post though, what did you expect to come out of all this? Maybe you had more ambitious hopes for this discussion between random people but personally I'm only here coz watching TV series from a developing country takes a hell lot of buffering.
|
i am not against gay marriage. i will still eat at chik-fil-a. they are a private industry and it isn't enough to not eat there just b/c they voiced an opinion, not necessarily against homosexuals but against homosexual marriage.
the government has no right to deny the public a private group's services unless said group is breaking the law. chik-fil-a is not breaking the law. liberals want more and more to control people's opinions, no different than the typical conservatives they complain about. i can deal with someone disagreeing with me or voicing an opinion, and i don't want anyone in a public position telling me that i shouldn't eat somewhere or forcing that place to relocate b/c the something politically incorrect was said
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 05:56 taintmachine wrote:
i am not against gay marriage. i will still eat at chik-fil-a. they are a private industry and it isn't enough to not eat there just b/c they voiced an opinion, not necessarily against homosexuals but against homosexual marriage.
the government has no right to deny the public a private group's services unless said group is breaking the law. chik-fil-a is not breaking the law. liberals want more and more to control people's lives. i can deal with someone disagreeing with me or voicing an opinion, and i don't want anyone in a public position telling me that i shouldn't eat somewhere b/c the mean old ppl said something politically incorrect
Let me just say this - Liberals and Republicans are nearly the same in that regard, just in different aspects of your life.
|
On July 27 2012 04:40 Zaqwert wrote:![[image loading]](http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/7899/39136910151133419454414.jpg)
Nope, just bigots/idiots/racists, it just may be a coincidence that most of those parties relate.
|
I don't agree with chik-fil-a but is it really fair that a business gets punished by the government when its owners voice their opinion? I mean this is America right, your supposed to be able to say what you want.
|
On July 27 2012 06:05 pinnacle wrote:
I don't agree with chik-fil-a but is it really fair that a business gets punished by the government when its owners voice their opinion? I mean this is America right, your supposed to be able to say what you want.
And the governor can't say what he wants because....
|
Sweden2683 Posts
On July 27 2012 06:04 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Nope, just bigots/idiots/racists, it just may be a coincidence that most of those parties relate.
You know that not all southern republican christians are white, gaybashing racists, do you? You are kind of proving him right.
|
On July 27 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:04 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 27 2012 04:40 Zaqwert wrote: Nope, just bigots/idiots/racists, it just may be a coincidence that most of those parties relate. You know that not all southern republican christians are white, gaybashing racists, do you?
He didn't say that, but the meme picture sorta implied it.
|
I hate it when people accuse liberals of being hypocrites because they oppose people who oppose equal rights. There's nothing wrong with being intolerant of intolerance.
|
On July 27 2012 06:08 Butterednuts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:05 pinnacle wrote:
I don't agree with chik-fil-a but is it really fair that a business gets punished by the government when its owners voice their opinion? I mean this is America right, your supposed to be able to say what you want. And the governor can't say what he wants because....
He can, but actually banning chik-fil-a is a different matter.
|
On July 27 2012 06:08 Butterednuts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:05 pinnacle wrote:
I don't agree with chik-fil-a but is it really fair that a business gets punished by the government when its owners voice their opinion? I mean this is America right, your supposed to be able to say what you want. And the governor can't say what he wants because....
public officials have free speech. i don't care if a mayor or governor or whoever says they don't like something unless it is going to influence my vote (just like how i wouldn't buy chik-fil-a if i were seriously disturbed by their opinion). they shouldn't go around banning businesses for reasons of political correctness unless the government has some serious financial stake in the company or how it operates (which is another scary topic altogether)
|
On July 27 2012 04:40 Zaqwert wrote:
If you think that being open-minded or tolerant to ideologies that are monotheistic or otherwise dogmatic (which means that they in turn do not respect your own ideologies) is a remotely intelligent or virtuous idea, you are about as wrong as it gets. Tolerating intolerance is nothing if not laughable.
Looks like you're more interested in mocking the way people think than being intellectually honest with yourself, let alone us. Garbage post.
|
On July 27 2012 06:14 Lumi wrote:If you think that being open-minded or tolerant to ideologies that are monotheistic or otherwise dogmatic (which means that they in turn do not respect your own ideologies) is a remotely intelligent or virtuous idea, you are about as wrong as it gets. Tolerating intolerance is nothing if not laughable.
pretty ridiculous how some of you think.
|
On July 27 2012 06:16 taintmachine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:14 Lumi wrote:On July 27 2012 04:40 Zaqwert wrote: If you think that being open-minded or tolerant to ideologies that are monotheistic or otherwise dogmatic (which means that they in turn do not respect your own ideologies) is a remotely intelligent or virtuous idea, you are about as wrong as it gets. Tolerating intolerance is nothing if not laughable. pretty ridiculous how some of you think.
Thanks for your very worthwhile post where you generally insult the way people in this thread are thinking. Or was that just for me? Care to be a decent person (or even just a decent forum user) and interact with me beyond showing up and saying that my thoughts are ridiculous?
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 27 2012 06:17 Lumi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:16 taintmachine wrote:On July 27 2012 06:14 Lumi wrote:On July 27 2012 04:40 Zaqwert wrote: If you think that being open-minded or tolerant to ideologies that are monotheistic or otherwise dogmatic (which means that they in turn do not respect your own ideologies) is a remotely intelligent or virtuous idea, you are about as wrong as it gets. Tolerating intolerance is nothing if not laughable. pretty ridiculous how some of you think. Thanks for your very worthwhile post where you generally insult the way people in this thread are thinking. Or was that just for me? Care to be a decent person and interact with me beyond showing up and saying that my thoughts are ridiculous?
Funny you would say that when you post is the same thing, just wordier. You didn't make an argument, just said that thinking tolerance means tolerance of intolerance is wrong and laughable. Personally, I think calling something tolerance when it's only tolerant towards certain ideals is laughable.
|
On July 27 2012 06:17 Lumi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:16 taintmachine wrote:On July 27 2012 06:14 Lumi wrote:On July 27 2012 04:40 Zaqwert wrote: If you think that being open-minded or tolerant to ideologies that are monotheistic or otherwise dogmatic (which means that they in turn do not respect your own ideologies) is a remotely intelligent or virtuous idea, you are about as wrong as it gets. Tolerating intolerance is nothing if not laughable. pretty ridiculous how some of you think. Thanks for your very worthwhile post where you generally insult the way people in this thread are thinking. Or was that just for me? Care to be a decent person and interact with me beyond showing up and saying that my thoughts are ridiculous?
you think monotheists do not respect other people's ideologies. you either don't know what respect means or... something
|
On July 27 2012 06:17 Lumi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:16 taintmachine wrote:On July 27 2012 06:14 Lumi wrote:On July 27 2012 04:40 Zaqwert wrote: If you think that being open-minded or tolerant to ideologies that are monotheistic or otherwise dogmatic (which means that they in turn do not respect your own ideologies) is a remotely intelligent or virtuous idea, you are about as wrong as it gets. Tolerating intolerance is nothing if not laughable. pretty ridiculous how some of you think. Thanks for your very worthwhile post where you generally insult the way people in this thread are thinking. Or was that just for me? Care to be a decent person (or even just a decent forum user) and interact with me beyond showing up and saying that my thoughts are ridiculous?
...but you just said someone else's thoughts were laughable. What's the difference between your thoughts that are ridiculous and the other guy's thoughts that are... funny?
|
On July 27 2012 06:20 taintmachine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:17 Lumi wrote:On July 27 2012 06:16 taintmachine wrote:On July 27 2012 06:14 Lumi wrote:On July 27 2012 04:40 Zaqwert wrote: If you think that being open-minded or tolerant to ideologies that are monotheistic or otherwise dogmatic (which means that they in turn do not respect your own ideologies) is a remotely intelligent or virtuous idea, you are about as wrong as it gets. Tolerating intolerance is nothing if not laughable. pretty ridiculous how some of you think. Thanks for your very worthwhile post where you generally insult the way people in this thread are thinking. Or was that just for me? Care to be a decent person and interact with me beyond showing up and saying that my thoughts are ridiculous? you think monotheists do not respect other people's ideologies. you either don't know what respect means or... something
He wrote that in parenthesis next to dogmatic =.='''
|
On July 27 2012 06:12 pinnacle wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:08 Butterednuts wrote:On July 27 2012 06:05 pinnacle wrote:
I don't agree with chik-fil-a but is it really fair that a business gets punished by the government when its owners voice their opinion? I mean this is America right, your supposed to be able to say what you want. And the governor can't say what he wants because.... He can, but actually banning chik-fil-a is a different matter.
Kinda like how Chick-fil-A contributes money to organizations that are getting gay marriage banned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
