EPTThis thread is full of this.
Boston Mayor vows to ban Chick-Fil-A from his city - Page 58
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
GraFx
United States429 Posts
This thread is full of this. | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On July 30 2012 03:14 GraFx wrote: Run out of ideas for reasonable/rational debate? Just insult the other person's opinion! This thread is full of this. Id rather read peoples opinions no matter how irrational than have a bunch of descriptive posts such as yours littering the thread. I don't need you to tell me whats going on in this thread, and I bet the majority of others don't either. Your comments adds nothing to the discussion yet criticizes people debating. You're silly is all I can possibly say. | ||
|
GraFx
United States429 Posts
On July 30 2012 03:17 PanN wrote: Id rather read peoples opinions no matter how irrational than have a bunch of descriptive posts such as yours littering the thread. I don't need you to tell me whats going on in this thread, and I bet the majority of others don't either. Your comments adds nothing to the discussion yet criticizes people debating. You're silly is all I can possibly say. Why add something to a discussion when people like you will only insult what I have to say if you disagree? There's little to no discussion going on. Also, I'm glad I've read multiple posts of yours where you nominate yourself to speak for the majority. | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On July 30 2012 03:19 GraFx wrote: Why add something to a discussion when people like you will only insult what I have to say if you disagree? There's little to no discussion going on. Also, I'm glad I've read multiple posts of yours where you nominate yourself to speak for the majority. Because thats what threads are for! Discussion. I also don't think people will just outright insult you. If they do, disagree with them yourself, its conversation! Thats the entire purpose of a thread, discussion. People will most definitely disagree, and sure there will be people that get angry, but for you to come in and judge the thread seems really silly when other people are actually having some sort of meaningful conversation (you don't see it, but I do, I read the whole thread, I read every gay rights thread that pops up and I find them pretty damn interesting usually). I just don't see the logic of saying this thread is just full of people insulting each other when its clearly not. Sure theres a few people stepping a bit over the line, but thats the mods job to clean up right? So why even bother saying "Run out of ideas for reasonable/rational debate? Just insult the other person's opinion! This thread is full of this." I just don't get why you wouldn't just ignore it, why comment on something that people can find out for themselves? If every single person did what you did, from your point of view, everybody in the thread would be insulting each other while telling everybody they're just insulting each other, that would be silly right? Both obviously don't add anything to the discussion at hand, so why not do something positive like report it if you feel people are out of line, or actually add something with substance? If for some odd reason you really want to continue this in PM we can, but I don't want to talk about this here any longer. | ||
|
GraFx
United States429 Posts
I initially commented because I'd love to discuss the situation. I haven't read the entire thread, but I've read a good 70% of it and the last few pages presented little to no actual discussion. It's been a lot of "your opinion is different than mine therefore it is wrong so you must be stupid" There have been exceptions sure but it's disheartening to see legit discussion topics reduced to insults and diarrhea of the mouth because people run out of rational thoughts. Honestly, I wanted to link this article but I was beat to the punch. On July 28 2012 11:59 catabowl wrote: http://www.dennyburk.com/two-lies-about-chick-fil-a-perpetuated-in-the-media/ Pretty solid claim imo. I'm not sure how or why the major topic isn't the fact that without evidence of the business of Chick-Fil-A actually discriminating against an employee or customer based on sexual orientation how a mayor or city can deny that business? It feels like to me that even though his words were twisted to fit this "anti gay marriage" wrap that's been put on him that Dan Cathy is actually the one being discriminated against. | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On July 30 2012 03:26 GraFx wrote: I initially commented because I'd love to discuss the situation. I haven't read the entire thread, but I've read a good 70% of it and the last few pages presented little to no actual discussion. It's been a lot of "your opinion is different than mine therefore it is wrong so you must be stupid" There have been exceptions sure but it's disheartening to see legit discussion topics reduced to insults and diarrhea of the mouth because people run out of rational thoughts. Honestly, I wanted to link this article but I was beat to the punch. See this post was awesome. I actually missed that article . . . and thanks to you I get to read it now. Thank you! | ||
|
Pleiades
United States472 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
Shinta)
United States1716 Posts
On July 26 2012 18:23 BlackJack wrote: Ironically this tyranny of the majority is exactly what gay rights advocates have been arguing against for the past few years. The rights in the constitution are inalienable. It's not up to the current elected officials to determine which speech is protected and which speech is worthy of reprisal in the form of denying permits. Actually it is. Welcome to politics. The thing is, the currect elected officials represent the voice of the people. All people's voices are represented by the current elected officials. If the people who chose him as their representative believe he is abusing his power, it is up to the people to rise and overrule the official. BUT, people don't do that these days. The world doesn't work the way it's supposed to in that sense, because people are weak, and government is strong. Even though it is part of the people's civil duty to raise rebellion against corrupt governments, people will never do so in the USA, ever. And if you think otherwise, you're wrong, period. With this said, government actually is allowed to do whatever they want, because it is within their power, and if you don't like it, you won't do anything about it. I'm not trying to argue which party is correct or right in their actions, all I'm saying is that the mayor does have the power to ban a company from entering the city. Whether anyone likes it or not. | ||
|
The Final Boss
United States1839 Posts
On July 30 2012 05:14 Pleiades wrote: I'd still go to a Chick Fil A for fast food. I'm not against their stance on gay-mariage or gay people in general. They have their opinions, so do we, and I respect that. The only thing I don't understand about their logic or other anti-gays, is why they have such an emphasis on using the biblical definition of marriage, when there are heterosexual couples that are non-christians getting legally married as well. Those couples wouldn't really care for a biblical definition. Too bad most democrat politicians aren't bold enough to make a stance on gay marriage or declare themselves non-christian. Frankly if you want to have a truly "secular state," then people should not be married in court rooms. Marriage is a term that has it's roots and has survived because of religion. It is so closely connected with religion that a truly secular state should stay away from using that specific word. They should use the term civil union for everybody because it does not step on any toes, it functions in a very similar way, and very specifically it puts a divide between the church and the state. People who are in favor of gay marriage but against the idea that they cannot get married in place of a civil union--that legally is the exact same thing by everything other than it's name--are just bigots who are determined to stomp all over anybody who is religious. If a couple wants to get married in addition to obtaining a civil union, then they can go to a church or similar place of worship and get married. EDIT: But as far as this Chick-Fil-A thing goes, the idea of stopping a business because they have a different political view is ridiculous. Let's say the mayor were to decide that he is going to stop the use of Google in Boston because Google is pro-gay marriage (forget the fact that you can't simply block something like that just for this scenario). There would be no debate here as far as whether or not the mayor is "right" or if that is within his power. | ||
|
Rannasha
Netherlands2398 Posts
On July 30 2012 06:18 The Final Boss wrote: Frankly if you want to have a truly "secular state," then people should not be married in court rooms. Marriage is a term that has it's roots and has survived because of religion. It is so closely connected with religion that a truly secular state should stay away from using that specific word. They should use the term civil union for everybody because it does not step on any toes, it functions in a very similar way, and very specifically it puts a divide between the church and the state. People who are in favor of gay marriage but against the idea that they cannot get married in place of a civil union--that legally is the exact same thing by everything other than it's name--are just bigots who are determined to stomp all over anybody who is religious. If a couple wants to get married in addition to obtaining a civil union, then they can go to a church or similar place of worship and get married. The whole "marriage is a religious thing" business has come up many times before and it is simply not true. Marriage existed before christianity existed, marriage exists in cultures that have never been christian. Read up on the history of the concept on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage It's true that there was a time where church and state were the same thing (during the Dark Ages), so the civil concept of marriage was merged with the religious interpretation of the term. But these days church and state are being separated again (and rightfully so) and the concept of marriage is again being separated from what the church makes of it. I can get married without ever setting foot in a church (in fact, I did). The same is true in the US. Marriage is already a civil matter. The fact that you can have a religious ceremony as well is an afterthought. The religious marriage doesn't have any value in society as a whole, only in the subset of society that follows the same religion. And this is how it should be. And with this in mind, there is no reason to not extend the same rights to gays and lesbians. What the different religions do with their ceremonies is up to them to decide, but the marriage that counts for everyone should be available to everyone. | ||
|
derpinator
74 Posts
| ||
|
Smat
United States301 Posts
On July 30 2012 06:44 derpinator wrote: I read the mayors letter and I find it very shocking that a public figure would actually write such emotional drivel. He expresses the same kind of attitude that conservative nitwits do on fox channel but in this case its meant for the other side of the political spectrum. I dont think anyone should support his call for banning a bussiness because its views on social issues are not to the mayors liking. He never said he would ban them. He merely told Chic that they weren't welcome in Boston. He can say whatever he wants about a business. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On July 30 2012 06:44 derpinator wrote: I read the mayors letter and I find it very shocking that a public figure would actually write such emotional drivel. He expresses the same kind of attitude that conservative nitwits do on fox channel but in this case its meant for the other side of the political spectrum. I dont think anyone should support his call for banning a bussiness because its views on social issues are not to the mayors liking. Well first he's free to say what he wants. Especially when/if it speaks for the majority of the state's residents. If he took action that'd be a problem, but he didn't. Second what you said would only be true if it was a valid social issue where both sides had merit. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On July 30 2012 03:38 PanN wrote: See this post was awesome. I actually missed that article . . . and thanks to you I get to read it now. Thank you! That article was written by this gentlemen here: "I am an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I also serve as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, which is in Louisville as well." Clearly a biased individual (and not even from a particularly qualified person on journalism). In fact, you took the article from the man's personal website, not exactly a credible source of information and facts. But lets move on to the actual substance of the article. He conveniently ignores the massive amount of money Chik-fil-a has donated to anti-gay rights organizations, which makes it an anti-gay company. The owner is anti-gay. The company gives money to anti-gay organizations. I don't see how you can claim the company isn't anti-gay rights. His first point is that Chik-fil-a spouted a take-back statement after they stepped in shit and realized how much trouble they were getting themselves in, and therefore isn't an anti-gay business. His second point is also blatantly a lie and academically dishonest, I present the following quote from the interview: Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position. "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. I don't know how you can interpret that to conclude that they aren't denigrating the idea of two men being married or two women being married. Read the interview for yourselves. He even writes (about a previous interview) "Cathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Cathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview. Again, I invite readers to verify this for themselves by listening to the audio below. The interview begins at the 22:00 minute mark." As if it there was someway to interpret "it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage" that doesn't include the meaning of gay marriage being wrong. In short, that article you link is horse shit. His argument is awful. Try to evaluate these things with an eye towards academic standards. | ||
|
s_side
United States700 Posts
I also find it pretty hilarious that not many people have called us out on the fact that our mayor is a complete fucking imbecile. There is a tremendous geographical diversity here on TL. Can anyone provide me an example of a man so utterly incapable of forming sentences that holds a major public office elsewhere in the world? For many, I assume, this controversy will be the first time you have heard of Mayor Menino. To give everyone a little bit of context (and to show the amazing breadth of his fat-tongued idiocy): | ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
let them open a store in the city and then let the inhabitant decide, the company isn't breaking the law so don't be an asshole | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On July 30 2012 01:49 PanN wrote: No, it, is, NOT. Marriage is NOT a religious deal. Marriage has predated a lot of religions. Thats the WHOLE fucking reason this is just disgusting. Religious people claiming they want to protect something, meanwhile it was never theres to begin with. I have no idea what your last statement even means, no duh is all I could really say to that. Gay marriage will help people who LOVE eachother actually solidify that bond. If homosexuals genuinely love each other and promise to spend the rest of their lives supporting their partner, not unlike a married couple, how will a marriage license further solidify their bond? (tax and other societal perks aside here; I want to focus on why the government must put a stamp of approval on thier love in order for their relationship to "work?") I guess what I'm asking is, does a relationship's stability come from the connection and people themselves, or must it be espoused by the government and its people? Sorry if I'm unclear.... | ||
|
Rannasha
Netherlands2398 Posts
On July 30 2012 14:55 cLAN.Anax wrote: If homosexuals genuinely love each other and promise to spend the rest of their lives supporting their partner, not unlike a married couple, how will a marriage license further solidify their bond? (tax and other societal perks aside here; I want to focus on why the government must put a stamp of approval on thier love in order for their relationship to "work?") I guess what I'm asking is, does a relationship's stability come from the connection and people themselves, or must it be espoused by the government and its people? Sorry if I'm unclear.... People who are married are more likely to be happy than people that aren't (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18966729). But that's just one point. An important reason to get married is the legal benefits that you so quickly push aside. Legeally sharing posessions, tax benefits and the right to make life-and-death decissions in the event that your partner is hospitalized. And since the whole notion of marriage is a civil one to begin with, it is downright insulting to suggest that gays should get the same benefits, but with a different name (civil union) because the religious lobby has hijacked ownership of the concept of marriage. | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
On July 30 2012 16:01 Rannasha wrote: People who are married are more likely to be happy than people that aren't (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18966729). But that's just one point. An important reason to get married is the legal benefits that you so quickly push aside. Legeally sharing posessions, tax benefits and the right to make life-and-death decissions in the event that your partner is hospitalized. And since the whole notion of marriage is a civil one to begin with, it is downright insulting to suggest that gays should get the same benefits, but with a different name (civil union) because the religious lobby has hijacked ownership of the concept of marriage. A fair point. I can accept that married folk are ineed happier than singles. I pushed the legal benefits aside because that's a separate point from the one I'm addressing. Say for the sake of argument that the benefits from the government are the same. The point I'm trying to argue is, if the government has the power to issue "marriages" to couples, and it's those government-approved "marriages" that provide the stability that they need to endure, shouldn't that hold true to all forms of couples? Like, where does the true stability of the relationship come from: the two people involved or the government? If it is the latter, then are gay couples (and even straight couples, for that matter) only truly happy and genuinely in love if the rest of the citizens and the government approve of their bond? (have to sleep now, but I will return, at least to read responses; g'night) | ||
| ||
