Chick-fil-a [Archive]

Rainbow Dash

August 2nd, 2012, 09:57 PM

they make good food and that is about all I care about.

haha ok, so you wouldn't care if they were supporting the kkk or something else either(like say that ugandan law supporting the execution of homosexuals, which supposedly they also have supported (apparently I can't find a proper source on this though?) monetarily), aight then!

also

If you have ever bought a yummy chicken sandwich from Chick Fil A, some of your money went on to be donated to the National Organization for Marriage, the Ruth Institute, the Pennsylvania Family Institute, Focus on the Family and Exodus International—all activist groups fighting against equal marriage rights for gays and many running programs designed to cure homosexuality. Many of these gay cure programs are actually brainwashing camps where uptight conservative parents send their gay kids to put the fear of God into them. “No son of mine is going to prefer mating with people of the same gender!”

thehoodedsmack

August 2nd, 2012, 10:00 PM

Brief Grammar Lesson

I could honestly careless

I can care less

COULDN'T. You COULDN'T care less. Saying you COULD care less implies you care at least a bit, and also implies you may care a great deal, as it suggests no upper limit. The only thing it DOESN'T imply is that you don't care at all, which is EXACTLY the point you're trying to make. Is this an American phrase or something? Why is it so common? Why don't people listen to the words they're saying?

I don't think there's anything wrong with defending your traditional (see ancient, outdated) ideals. The problem with a large-scale event like this, however, is that it attracts actual bigots, from both sides, to ruin and escalate what would otherwise be a local-news-making-only story.

arbiter901

August 2nd, 2012, 10:06 PM

Marriage should only be between a man and women, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion as I am.

Rainbow Dash

August 2nd, 2012, 10:08 PM

http://img.lulz.net/src/292427_10150999535376025_580937476_n.jpg

thehoodedsmack

August 2nd, 2012, 10:10 PM

Christ-burn.

Higuy

August 2nd, 2012, 10:11 PM

haha ok, so you wouldn't care if they were supporting the kkk or something else either(like say that ugandan law supporting the execution of homosexuals, which supposedly they also have supported (apparently I can't find a proper source on this though?) monetarily), aight then!

but they arent

they are supporting Christianity. which is what they practice. last time i checked i lived in a country where you can believe whatever the hell you want. sure, people may not like you for it, but that shouldn't be stopping you.

if you dont like what they believe in, then dont buy their food. simple enough. but if i want a good chicken sandwhich i know where im going.

everyone is entitled to their own opinion as I am.

:like:

http://img.lulz.net/src/292427_10150999535376025_580937476_n.jpg

you realize people go there that arent actually christian at all right

they just want good food

food

Rainbow Dash

August 2nd, 2012, 10:26 PM

but they arent

actually, in the case of that uganda law atleast :]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/01/1115751/-What-really-makes-the-gays-mad-about-Chick-fil-A

TVTyrant

August 2nd, 2012, 10:29 PM

Brief Grammar Lesson

COULDN'T. You COULDN'T care less. Saying you COULD care less implies you care at least a bit, and also implies you may care a great deal, as it suggests no upper limit. The only thing it DOESN'T imply is that you don't care at all, which is EXACTLY the point you're trying to make. Is this an American phrase or something? Why is it so common? Why don't people listen to the words they're saying?

I don't think there's anything wrong with defending your traditional (see ancient, outdated) ideals. The problem with a large-scale event like this, however, is that it attracts actual bigots, from both sides, to ruin and escalate what would otherwise be a local-news-making-only story.
I always meant I can care less otr I could care less as I do care and it bugs me somewhat, but I could care less, like in 20 seconds I won't care at all about it./

TVTyrant

August 2nd, 2012, 10:31 PM

actually, in the case of that uganda law atleast :]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/01/1115751/-What-really-makes-the-gays-mad-about-Chick-fil-A
I agree, that level of extremity is too far. Constitutional to believe so, but Chik-Fil-A (which I have never seen or been to) will never have my business.

Rainbow Dash

August 2nd, 2012, 10:35 PM

you realize people go there that arent actually christian at all right

they just want good food

food

hahahahahahahahhahahahah

oh god do I even need to shit all over this guys?

PenGuin1362

August 2nd, 2012, 10:37 PM

America. Where homosexuality is an epidemic and perpetuating obesity is the accepted method to combat it.

TVTyrant

August 2nd, 2012, 10:38 PM

America. Where homosexuality is an epidemic and perpetuating obesity is the accepted method to combat it.
If everyone's fat, no one will ever get laid and the Christians win!

PlasbianX

August 2nd, 2012, 10:46 PM

http://s11.postimage.org/l3v8lj8ib/yup.jpg

Zeph

August 2nd, 2012, 11:02 PM

you realize people go there that arent actually christian at all right

But that picture was taken during the "support christian morals BAN GAY MARRIAGE day by buying Chick-fil-a day" thing.

DarkHalo003

August 2nd, 2012, 11:12 PM

It's freedom of speech people, the chief executive of Chik-Fil-A can say that he doesn't approve of Gay Marriage and thus he can say the same of the organization he runs. It's not like they're banning gays from their restaurant or doing some racist shit like we saw before Civil Rights kicked in. Also, Marriage has traditionally been a religious thing anyways. If the religion Chik-Fil-A supports generally idealizes that marriage must be between a man and a woman, then they have the right to state so in this country so long as they don't be discriminatory in their employment or service.

2959

Seriously people, this isn't that big of deal and people shouldn't treat it as such. I'm all for the legality of Gay Marriage. Who says too people shouldn't be allowed to be legally bound in legal matrimony? I only say legal in perspective of there being many different religions.

Plasbian and Smack have this nailed to a T. Everyone is entitled to what they believe. If they weren't, this would be an authoritarian state of control.

Emmzee

August 2nd, 2012, 11:25 PM

hehe le epic reddit image at the top of this page

Kornman00

August 3rd, 2012, 01:07 AM

Cock-fil-a's thick headed boss man may have the right to voice against same-sex marriage, and use their revenue in support of anti-gay acts, but I and everybody else also have the right to not eat their shitty sandwiches.

Long story short? Fuck the company and their cock filled sandwiches.

rossmum

August 3rd, 2012, 04:00 AM

I could honestly careless about what the Chick-fil-a president (or whatever he is) says, for all I care, they're just a fast food restaurant that serves chicken. What you think?
pro tip, they don't just say they hate gays, they monetarily support hate groups and are actively trying to erode their rights. oh and they also prop up groups who encourage developing nations to outlaw homosexuality and kill gays so basically what you are doing by continuing to support them monetarily is saying that convenience food is more important to you than people being killed for an unavoidable biological hardwiring they cannot do anything about

so basically as far as i am concerned, 'i couldn't care less' is as bad as 'yeah, man, fuck gays'

rossmum

August 3rd, 2012, 04:02 AM

Marriage should only be between a man and women, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion as I am.
care to defend your baseless bigotry? i'm severely behind my "watching idiots try and squirm their way out of accounting for their stupid opinions" quota this week

Amit

August 3rd, 2012, 07:10 AM

care to defend your baseless bigotry? i'm severely behind my "watching idiots try and squirm their way out of accounting for their stupid opinions" quota this week

He'll probably respond with some religious claim.

Bodzilla

August 3rd, 2012, 07:27 AM

Rainbow Dash

August 3rd, 2012, 12:27 PM

pro tip, they don't just say they hate gays, they monetarily support hate groups and are actively trying to erode their rights. oh and they also prop up groups who encourage developing nations to outlaw homosexuality and kill gays so basically what you are doing by continuing to support them monetarily is saying that convenience food is more important to you than people being killed for an unavoidable biological hardwiring they cannot do anything about

so basically as far as i am concerned, 'i couldn't care less' is as bad as 'yeah, man, fuck gays'

~apathy~ is great innit~~~

DarkHalo003

August 3rd, 2012, 01:20 PM

alright idiots here's the difference.

if i dont believe the new batman movie was good, i have every right in the world to not see it.
but i DONT have the right to stop it from being screened.

Stop using flawed logic, believe what you want to believe but for godsake leave other people choices, options and RIGHTS out of it otherwise your a fascist piece of shit.
if you cant understand that your fucking stupid.
^
Everyone, it's just one entity out of millions that serves food to people and that service is not based on race or preference (otherwise that would be illegal). They close their restaurants on Sundays so people can be with their families and go to their religious institutions on that day. The statement has traditional Christian values which the company endorses. Marriage in the secular sense can be between anyone, but in the religion they value it's held to be between a man and woman. I can't seem to understand why you are all so disturbed by this and how you're so adamant in calling an American-based company a hag when OPEC is executing gays and forbidding gay marriage in the Middle East as they control half of the oil distribution and pricing in the world, something I'm positive it considerably worse than saying "We do not support gay marriage, but we'll still employ gays and serve them like everyone else." You people honestly think an opinion from one entity that's a food corporation is bad, even if they pay groups that end up fighting homosexuality, even though most of those attempts are ultimately fruitless? Seriously, I'd rather we focus on an obvious unstable part of the world than on a part of the world that is stable and highly opinionated.

=sw=warlord

August 3rd, 2012, 01:37 PM

So, what you're saying is everyone should ignore the injustice invoked on America and invade other countries?
What has that got you? oh right two flat sky scrapers and two wars.

how about we focus on the issues we can actually have some influence on rather than bothering the middle east and shaking the bee hive constantly?

Bodzilla

August 3rd, 2012, 01:42 PM

or he could counter my point.

i think that'd be enlightening.

DarkHalo003

August 3rd, 2012, 02:08 PM

@Bod: Not sure if I know what you mean. I was agreeing with you.

So, what you're saying is everyone should ignore the injustice invoked on America and invade other countries?
What has that got you? oh right two flat sky scrapers and two wars.

how about we focus on the issues we can actually have some influence on rather than bothering the middle east and shaking the bee hive constantly?
No. I don't think you think before you post besides rhetoric. People who are homosexual in the US can live as such and only receive criticism from bigots or people who disagree with their interests. They can ignore the assholes. People who are homosexual in the Middle East are persecuted to the point of execution and literal torture. My point is that you folks are criticizing an entity that is giving an opinion and endorsing that opinion (even when those matters are relatively hot air) rather than you all understand that there is an entity performing gradual genocide on people with a different mindset and sexual preference than the norm. If you have a problem with anti-gay entities, being mad at a food corporation isn't fruitful at all, especially when all you're doing is blowing hot air. Is there hypocrisy? Fuck yes, but both sides are being bigots here. I think people invest too much in a legal standing of marriage anyways (the perception of marriage is overrated IMO). If a religion doesn't support gay marriage, then make one that does or find one that does. Problem solved. Freedom of and from religion in the US. People are fucking idiots.

Also, if you're going to mock the deaths and sacrifices of many who shouldn't have had to die, but did so anyways regardless of the outcome and the results, just to try and prove a moot point, then fuck off.

=sw=warlord

August 3rd, 2012, 02:18 PM

No. I don't think you think before you post besides rhetoric. People who are homosexual in the US can live as such and only receive criticism from bigots or people who disagree with their interests.
Oh I do think about my rhetoric before making it, you'd be a fool to think I would do so without planning it out before hand

They can ignore the assholes. People who are homosexual in the Middle East are persecuted to the point of execution and literal tortured.
These 'assholes' are pushing their opinions on others and sending people to camps which supposedly 'cure' the 'deformity'.
These 'assholes' are pushing their opinion as fact and are infringing on others rights, their argument is it is un natural but the very fact it happens disproves that assumption.
you can't simply ignore these 'assholes' when they're directly impacting your life and harassing you.

My point is that you folks are criticizing an entity that is giving an opinion and endorsing that opinion (even when those matters are relatively hot air) rather than you all understand that there is an entity performing gradual genocide on people with a different mindset and sexual preference than the norm.

As I pointed out, you deal with the small fry first and then work on the bigger, if you can resolve issues at home first then you are in a better position to deal with those of your neighbours.
How can you go into someone else's country and tell them what to do when you have people doing the same thing on a lower level in your own country?

Also, if you're going to mock the deaths and sacrifices of many who shouldn't have had to die, but did so anyways regardless of the outcome and the results, just to try and prove a point you can't defend, then fuck off.
I never mocked those deaths, you would do well to actually understand my point, invading other countries in a hostile manner will not bring the people there peace, it will not bring you peace either.
you throw stones in a glass house and you can expect some of the glass to get broken and fall on you.
I can perfectly defend my point but it seems you cannot defend yours no matter which way you twist it.

Here's how I see it, I don't believe in divine deities but that doesn't give me the right to revoke peoples rights to their own belief systems, I'm not homosexual either but I'm not bothered about those who are, as far as I'm concerned their own choices are theirs, they don't affect me in any sort of way or anyone else not directly involved in their relationships, as such they should be given their own freedom to make their own choices.
Banning gay marriage will not bring you peace of mind, it will not change the minds of those inclined in such a way either, forcing them to attend camps which effectively brain wash you with the fear that God might strike you down is effectively playing God with their lives.

Heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships have no impact on family values, from the child's view; on the one hand they may not have their friends staring at their mothers breasts or on the other they may have their friends staring at both of their mothers breasts.

Roostervier

August 3rd, 2012, 02:44 PM

i don't give a fuck if chik fil a doesn't like gays. i buy their food because i like it, and they spend their money how they choose to. they have to deal with the consequences of their actions, but fortunately for them i like chicken, and anyone who likes their chicken as much as me will continue to spend money at their restaurants.

Higuy

August 3rd, 2012, 03:56 PM

DarkHalo003

August 3rd, 2012, 04:08 PM

I never mocked those deaths, you would do well to actually understand my point, invading other countries in a hostile manner will not bring the people there peace, it will not bring you peace either.
you throw stones in a glass house and you can expect some of the glass to get broken and fall on you.
I can perfectly defend my point but it seems you cannot defend yours no matter which way you twist it.

Here's how I see it, I don't believe in divine deities but that doesn't give me the right to revoke peoples rights to their own belief systems, I'm not homosexual either but I'm not bothered about those who are, as far as I'm concerned their own choices are theirs, they don't affect me in any sort of way or anyone else not directly involved in their relationships, as such they should be given their own freedom to make their own choices.
Banning gay marriage will not bring you peace of mind, it will not change the minds of those inclined in such a way either, forcing them to attend camps which effectively brain wash you with the fear that God might strike you down is effectively playing God with their lives.

Heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships have no impact on family values, from the child's view; on the one hand they may not have their friends staring at their mothers breasts or on the other they may have their friends staring at both of their mothers breasts.
Because dealing with a dictator the US put into power out of our governments own interests, a dictator that was doing oppressing the hell out of the possibility of a decent future for a great many of those people, was not worth a war? Yeah, there were no weapons of mass destruction, but what if there were? Hell, there could have been and they had just been moved the moment the situation looked grim for Saddam. No matter which way you slice it, Iraq would have been in a bad way and the war brought them at least a chance for a future beyond a dictator. No one said it would be easy and simple.

I never said I disagreed with the stance that these assholes are oppressing people. I thought I made it clear that I agree with it and I think it's fucked up how churches aren't accepting truths as they come or opening possibilities to other truths. However, my point isn't direct in that we should stop focusing on Chikfila and focus on OPEC, but rather that people are getting so damn riled over this one situation when genocide has been happening for years in the Middle East in a very similar situation (they not only brainwash, but also torture and murder) and people (and every government really) have been continuing to buy the oil distributed by OPEC and guess what? No one is creating a shit storm over that. Yeah, this shit shouldn't be happening in this country, but there are far worse things happening in this country (such as society brainwashing people into what it wants them to believe in politically, theologically, and mentally) than traditional groups stating traditional opinions.

I also want sources on these Chikfila labor camps.

Kornman00

August 3rd, 2012, 05:09 PM

I also want sources on these Chikfila labor camps.
For which species, humans or chickens :mech2:?

Kornman00

August 3rd, 2012, 06:19 PM

http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

#4 was pretty good

DarkHalo003

August 3rd, 2012, 09:56 PM

For which species, humans or chickens :mech2:?
O I C Wut U Did Thar.

rossmum

August 4th, 2012, 04:18 AM

:like:
posts like this should be bannable. it is the very worst form of low-content posting. even posting a fucking single emote that has nothing to do with the topic being discussed is both more relevant and more intellectually taxing than posting that stupid little icon that says, "i am either too lazy or too stupid to add my opinion to an issue, and would deeply prefer it if all issues in the world were simple binary choices, so i wouldn't have to inconvenience myself by thinking so hard". the real world is full of choices and almost none of them are binary. wake the fuck up.

a lot of stupid posts in this thread. let me explain a few things to you clowns:

a) you can support gay rights or you can support chick-fil-a. they are mutually exclusive actions. you cannot pretend like you give a shit about gay rights and then go throw money at people who will pass a good percentage of the money you gave them to groups who not only dislike gay rights, but take every action in their ability to erode or prevent them. you are not just 'buying a meal', you are supporting bigotry.

b) anyone who invokes free speech here is a fucking idiot. free speech is exactly that, it doesn't cover paying off activists and lobby groups to influence policymaking in your favour, you fucking retards.

c) just because a company employs gay workers, or allows gay customers to purchase from them, it does not even begin to absolve their actions. you are fucking stupid if you even begin to disagree on this point, and should probably smash your head into something until you find yourself able to think rationally, like a proper human being. history is full of instances where people have co-opted their targets into working for them to work against themselves, and i mean full of them.

if you support chick-fil-a by buying products from them, your money is then being used not only to make bigots' lives more comfortable, but also to actively sabotage the rights of gay people you're all scrambling over yourselves to appear cool with. end of story. you cannot detach the two, no matter how hard you try. you are essentially proving through your actions that the rights of your fellow man are less valuable to you than fucking fast food chicken you could cook yourself if you weren't such a lazy slob. congratulations on being awful!

p.s. anyone who says marriage is/should be a union between one man and one woman, you are empirically wrong, marriage has meant a lot of things over the years and it is only within the most miniscule fraction of recent human history that homosexuality has been looked down upon, or marriage has been monogamous. you are also saying you value that specific definition of marriage over the thousands of others, including those which have been around thousands of years longer than christianity as a whole, let alone whatever denomination you follow. you, too, are horrible people. congrats.

=sw=warlord

August 4th, 2012, 05:34 AM

Because dealing with a dictator the US put into power out of our governments own interests, a dictator that was doing oppressing the hell out of the possibility of a decent future for a great many of those people, was not worth a war?

Solution:
DON'T FUCKING PUT THE DICTATORS IN POWER IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, they're just waiting at the sidelines to stab you in the back later on.

Rainbow Dash

August 4th, 2012, 07:48 AM

holy shit can we just enable rep for ross so I can put so much green up his tight butt right the fuck now

Higuy

August 4th, 2012, 08:29 AM

*

holy shit, i didn't know idiots could type such long posts

having a debate between people like you or selentic is like talking to a piece of concrete, i have also given my opinion multiple times in the past. the only person that seems to care the most here about this topic is pretty much you or sel.

you should also realize that some people here are not gay whatsoever, and actually dont give a shit about the issue, simply becuase it does not affect them. i dont have a problem with gay people, like said before, but a company should be able to do whatever the hell they want with money they have earned from people who have bought their product, and not have to be told what to with it from liberal, socialist scum.

the fact that you state your opinion as a fact also makes you look even more like an idiot, especially after you ask for my opinion again and have neglected actually either:

a. looked at my posts previously

b. saw them, glanced at them, but not actally read them

c. cant understand simple things people say

lastly, you go on to say that people who believe in marriage being between one man and one woman is completley wrong, which is another opinion from you (not a fact... i dont know if you'll be able to understand that though). you do realize right, that some people like the traditional form of marriage, and want to have nothing to with marriage/sexual relationships with the same sex, and that they would also like to have children naturally.

rossmum

August 4th, 2012, 08:29 AM

Solution:
DON'T FUCKING PUT THE DICTATORS IN POWER IF THE FIRST PLACE.
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, they're just waiting at the sidelines to stab you in the back later on.
furthermore while said dictator was clearly an awful person, the justifications for ousting them were all bogus. every single last one. there was not a single valid reason to go in besides "dudes are being oppressed by an evil overlord", in which case the un would've been wise to turn around and say, "so impeach him then"

=sw=warlord

August 4th, 2012, 08:35 AM

arriage being between one man and one woman is completley wrong, which is another opinion from you (not a fact... i dont know if you'll be able to understand that though). you do realize right, that some people like the traditional form of marriage, and want to have nothing to with marriage/sexual relationships with the same sex, and that they would also like to have children naturally.
Whose form of tradition?
Christian tradition is a relatively new one.
Monogamy is a fairly recent thing, in some places polygamy still rules the roost and some cultures don't even have that, they mate with who ever and not worry about mutually intimate relationships.
Also just because someone believes in a man who could walk on water does not mean that is true.
I want to believe the tooth fairy comes in my room every night so I could check her orals but that doesn't mean she exists.

Protip: just because someone's opinion says something is true doesn't mean it actually is.

Higuy

August 4th, 2012, 08:42 AM

Whose form of tradition?

the human races?

dosent have to be marriage, but the simple fact with one man and one woman is the only reason you and i are standing here today.

rossmum

August 4th, 2012, 08:44 AM

holy shit, i didn't know idiots could type such long posts
sorry, i didn't realise it was difficult for you to read more than five lines, though this certainly explains why you insist on bring a stupid fad centred around dumbing down worldviews into two words to a forum where it doesn't belong

having a debate between people like you or selentic is like talking to a piece of concrete, i have also given my opinion multiple times in the past. the only person that seems to care the most here about this topic is pretty much you or sel.
then either give it again or don't post, there is literally no excuse for low-content 'like' shitposting

you should also realize that some people here are not gay whatsoever, and actually dont give a shit about the issue, simply becuase it does not affect them.
the same kinds of people who historically say 'not my problem' during ethnic cleansing and genocide. truly a really wonderful subset of humanity.

i dont have a problem with gay people, like said before
well clearly you aren't willing to back up that claim with actions instead of hollow words on an online forum, so i seriously doubt the veracity of your claim

but a company should be able to do whatever the hell they want with money they have earned from people who have bought their product
well shit, why not! let's allow companies to use their profits to fund groups that actively encourage abhorrent violations of others' rights, including murder, based entirely on something they can't control! holy shit i cannot believe people in the 21st century actually still think like this

and not have to be told what to with it from liberal, socialist scum.
ah yes, filthy liberal socialists, truly a blight upon the earth. they should all be shot and their corpses thrown into the sea. tell me more about being a sociopathic bigot

the fact that you state your opinion as a fact also makes you look even more like an idiot
hmmm, except the part where everything i said is demonstrably true, and i have yet to see you or anyone else prove otherwise rather than make ad-hominem attacks and parrot whatever dumb bullshit your buddy glenn beck has been shitting out of his mouth recently

especially after you ask for my opinion again
i'm simply pointing out how fucking stupid this 'like/dislike' binary choice bullshit is, how stupid it is to use it on a forum where the whole fucking medium of communication is based upon expanded text rather than a single icon, and how incredibly arrogant it is to think it can ever take the place of even a quick post about why you agree

lastly, you go on to say that people who believe in marriage being between one man and one woman is completley wrong, which is another opinion from you (not a fact... i dont know if you'll be able to understand that though).
the christian definition of marriage is a relative newcomer to the table, as is the stupid fear of homosexuality that has cropped up around the same time. to claim there is a 'correct' definition of marriage is wrong, ignorant, and extremely selfish. consider actually parsing what i've written rather than flying off the handle to defend arbitrary, meaningless bullshit.

now here comes the opinion part: i think marriage is a pointless institution only worth what is put into it. it is nobody's business to say what it entails as a general thing, only what they want it to be for them. i personally do not need to go through archaic and expensive traditional ceremonies, legally binding contracts, and financially binding ones as well just to prove that i love someone. if you do, fine, but anyone who gets married simply because of social pressure is a moron and is setting themselves up for failure.

marriage has no inherent worth at all and trying to 'defend' some outdated and extremely narrow perception of what it is amounts to nothing other than bigotry. i'd love to see you argue against that, since you seem to think that dictating to others what they can and can't define something that is personal between them to be is even okay, let alone 'not an awfully shitty thing to do'.

you do realize right, that some people like this, and want to have nothing to with marriage/sexual relationships with the same sex, and that they would also like to have children naturally.
except by supporting a company that supports anti-gay groups, you are willingly involving yourself on at least some level. you cannot just 'have nothing to do with it' you fucking dolt.

rossmum

August 4th, 2012, 08:46 AM

the human races?

dosent have to be marriage, but the simple fact with one man and one woman is the only reason you and i are standing here today.
this just in: according to higuy, the thousands of definitions of marriage that have been around since before judeo-christian religion, let alone modern christianity, don't exist

e/ second para was based on me missing the beginning of the sentence, but it is still an incredibly stupid, irrelevant point and has no place in this argument?

Rainbow Dash

August 4th, 2012, 09:02 AM

having a debate between people like you or selentic is like talking to a piece of concrete, i have also given my opinion multiple times in the past. the only person that seems to care the most here about this topic is pretty much you or sel.

wait what giving a shit about the topic is a bad thing now?

the fact that you state your opinion as a fact also makes you look even more like an idiot

*post fact*

well that's like, ur opinion man!

also not gonna bother with the rest since it looks like ross shit all over you just fine already

=sw=warlord

August 4th, 2012, 09:44 AM

true fact, Marriage historically has been about a union between people who share an equal friendship, it has not always been bound between lovers let alone which orientation those lovers take.

rossmum

August 4th, 2012, 10:20 AM

aside from which it is both pointless and ignorant beyond belief to assert there is any one 'correct' definition, there are only definitions you, and you personally, prefer

and in this case they should never ever ever be applied to anyone else

Rainbow Dash

August 4th, 2012, 10:22 AM

true fact, Marriage historically has been about a union between people who share an equal friendship, it has not always been bound between lovers let alone which orientation those lovers take.

STOP PRESENTING UR OPINION AS FACT

Skyline

August 4th, 2012, 10:26 AM

if you support _________ by buying ________ from them, your money is then being used not only to make bigots' lives more comfortable, but also to actively sabotage the rights of ___________ you're all scrambling over yourselves to appear cool with. end of story. you cannot detach the two, no matter how hard you try. you are essentially proving through your actions that the rights of ________ are less valuable to you than fucking _________ you could _______ yourself if you weren't such a lazy slob. congratulations on being awful!

big commanies, fossel fuels, mother earth, mother earth, driving somewhere, bike

lol it's almost like a fill in the blank with your argument rant.

DarkHalo003

August 4th, 2012, 11:09 AM

^Just fill in a few. It's quite hilarious, especially when you only use one word.

@Warlord: I was referring to how the U.S. at least tries to clean up its own messes. But you are right that Marriage should be a friendship. Your spouse should be your best friend and they should know you like a book (vice versa). Unfortunately, it isn't always equal, but people can make it work. :fflove:

However, like I sad before, if Gays are seeking Holy Matrimony in the religious tense then they need to stop with the traditional conventions and find a religion that lets them. As far as legal terms, most people I talk to say they'd be perfectly okay with a legal union between two same-sex individuals, just as they'd be okay with a legal union between two heterosexual individuals.

Rainbow Dash

August 4th, 2012, 11:51 AM

lol it's almost like a fill in the blank with your argument rant.

As in it could be used against any other entity that financially supports what are effectively hate groups?

well ok?

=sw=warlord

August 4th, 2012, 01:16 PM

However, like I sad before, if Gays are seeking Holy Matrimony in the religious tense then they need to stop with the traditional conventions and find a religion that lets them. As far as legal terms, most people I talk to say they'd be perfectly okay with a legal union between two same-sex individuals, just as they'd be okay with a legal union between two heterosexual individuals.
They aren't seeking "Holy matrimony" which is a broad definition by itself, all they want is the opportunity to be given the status of being married which involves various rights given to those married, I doubt they even care who does the ceremony so long as it's established they were are married.

Warsaw

August 4th, 2012, 02:20 PM

The problem with gay marriage in the USA is that religion (mostly by those folks who don't even understand their own faith) is getting tied up into legislation. It's a whole heaping of stupid. I don't honestly see how you can debate this issue with a straight face at all.

Remember separation of church and state is not an option, it's the law.

The end.

DarkHalo003

August 4th, 2012, 02:33 PM

They aren't seeking "Holy matrimony" which is a broad definition by itself, all they want is the opportunity to be given the status of being married which involves various rights given to those married, I doubt they even care who does the ceremony so long as it's established they were are married.
I feel like you don't even read my posts. I'm saying if they do seek "Holy Matrimony in the religious tense" then they shouldn't waste their time with bigotry and traditional religious institutions. They need to find what religion is best for their interests. There are couples who do seek it too. As far as marital legal status, which is a political and legal union as you are suggesting, then as I said most everyone I talk to is perfectly fine with it. It's simply those people thinking all marriage is is a religious union of man and woman through God.

TVTyrant

August 4th, 2012, 03:13 PM

People who "support" traditional marriage are people who have never had an original thought.

Yes, it should be called traditional marriage. In everyone in this threads background, it is their cultural tradition. However, I don't think that saying someone shouldn't have equal rights to you because they're "icky" means that you are supporting "tradition". It means you are choosing to believe that someone's heart and soul makes them less human than you. You're the same as a mild racist who doesn't think that blacks should be killed, but you certainly don't want them around your wife or children.

IMO the way law works, it shouldn't even be called Marriage legally in the first place. The law should be as secular as possible. Marriage by law should be called a "Civil Union" and whatever you want to call your relationship is what you call it. But for fucking Fuck's sakes, saying that someone can't love in the same capacity you can because they love someone of the same gender as them is fucking retarded. You can think gays are icky all you want, but does that mean they shouldn't be given the same equality that we all strive for in life?

rossmum

August 4th, 2012, 08:58 PM

yesssss, now the goodposts begin

Emmzee

August 4th, 2012, 11:19 PM

rce_-cP6brc

EX12693

August 5th, 2012, 12:00 AM

That video makes me Unsure.......

Also Hardee's (aka Carl's Jr. where I live) is good.

sleepy1212

August 9th, 2012, 09:50 AM

Wait a minute...if i'm not supposed to give my money to people because they might use it to do things i disagree with then why the fuck should I work?

It's not like I can spend any of my paychecks anymore.

Actually, just stfu and make me a sammich.

Roostervier

August 9th, 2012, 11:23 AM

Wait a minute...if i'm not supposed to give my money to people because they might use it to do things i disagree with then why the fuck should I work?

Pretty much what I was thinking. If you pay taxes, then you're giving money to an establishment that drops bombs and develops weapons!!!! Said establishment has funded projects that have led to the internet, building roads, employing a police and firefighting force, and more effective and safe pharmaceuticals as well, and these are good things. People are going to spend your money on whatever they want, you've got no way of preventing this. So again, I'll keep eating at Chic-Fil-A because I think that shit tastes good and no matter what my money that I spend on products is going to go to some sort of cause that I don't agree with. Might as well have my spent money go to causes I don't agree with and still have good fucking chicken too.

rossmum

August 9th, 2012, 01:30 PM

Wait a minute...if i'm not supposed to give my money to people because they might use it to do things i disagree with then why the fuck should I work?
there is a distinct difference between willingly supporting something that is totally unnecessary by any measure, and something that isn't quite so optional, like working or paying taxes. ridiculous comparison.

It's not like I can spend any of my paychecks anymore.
...followed by ridiculous hyperbole, and one that doesn't even back up your argument (?) at that.

Roostervier

August 9th, 2012, 01:50 PM

there is a distinct difference between willingly supporting something that is totally unnecessary by any measure, and something that isn't quite so optional, like working or paying taxes. ridiculous comparison.
there's also a difference between giving donations for chic fil a's anti-homo cause and giving chic fil a payment for a product that they make and you happen to enjoy. claiming that buying products from that food chain is directly giving them your support for what they use their earnings on is ridiculous.

neuro

August 9th, 2012, 02:03 PM

>>implying it matters whether it's direct or indirect

ICEE

August 9th, 2012, 02:06 PM

I question why a corporation thinks it has any reason to jump into issues like this. OHWAIT why does the government think it has any any reason to jump into issues like this? Get too many humans together in one place and you get 2 things: A lot of CO2 and a lot of shitty opinions

Warsaw

August 9th, 2012, 02:20 PM

You could have just stopped at "a lot of shit."

sleepy1212

August 9th, 2012, 02:54 PM

there is a distinct difference between willingly supporting something that is totally unnecessary by any measure, and something that isn't quite so optional, like working or paying taxes. ridiculous comparison.

There is no distinction whatsoever. Whether you're buying a product from a company that donates to causes you don't agree with or the sales from another product end up in the paychecks of people who then use their money to support those same causes. Or whether any of that ends up as tax revenue which pays for policies you don't agree with, it's all the same. Your morale obligation stops when services are rendered, e.g., nuclear bombs, public schools, the war on drugs, health care, and even chicken sandwiches. Eventually all the money you will ever spend will pass through the coffers of organizations you disagree with. If you can't recognize that it is not your responsibility what other people do with their money then you'll just have to deal with it or opt out of the economy entirely.

...followed by ridiculous hyperbole, and one that doesn't even back up your argument (?) at that.

It wasn't a point... unless you think work and paychecks have nothing to do with each other.

DarkHalo003

August 9th, 2012, 03:16 PM

Higuy

August 9th, 2012, 04:02 PM

I question why a corporation thinks it has any reason to jump into issues like this.

They didnt jump into the issue, they were asked what their stance was on it.

ICEE

August 9th, 2012, 04:26 PM

They didnt jump into the issue, they were asked what their stance was on it.

The only appropriate answer they could have given would be "We're a restaurant, we serve chicken. This issue has nothing to do with chicken." I mean, seriously who would want to associate a fast food franchise with a political idea, ESPECIALLY seeing as it alienates a significant portion of the population who might otherwise want to eat their shitty sandwiches or whatever. Answer: someone with a surplus of chromosomes. That's like saying that Toys R us supports the notion that the holocaust never happened; it's just bad business.

People in this country like to throw their precious opinions into the public sphere, no matter who gets hurt in the process (I am now ranting). That's all well and good, be a bigot if you must. But why, oh why do people think it's okay to force those things into litigation? Law should be conserved (dare I use the C word in a political context?) for protecting people from harm, and regulating the economy. When Bills are submitted to be signed into law, the lawmaker should stop and think about how that bill falls under those criteria. Banning gays from marrying neither protects anyone from harm, nor is it an economic boon. Therefore, it should not even be considered worthy of a place on the ballot. Above all else, even popular opinion, logic must prevail, because people are fucking morons and will fire votes out of their ass in whatever direction fox news says to.

rossmum

August 9th, 2012, 05:54 PM

there's also a difference between giving donations for chic fil a's anti-homo cause and giving chic fil a payment for a product that they make and you happen to enjoy. claiming that buying products from that food chain is directly giving them your support for what they use their earnings on is ridiculous.
not at all. if you support them monetarily, and they support something else monetarily (not just verbally), then you are pretty fucking clearly supporting whatever it is they are giving their money to. whether it's direct or indirect makes no fucking difference, a part of your money is going to that cause. it is a pretty convenient feat of cognitive dissonance to claim you don't support those views when your own money is being used to finance their spreading.

i know people are inherently simple, and like everything to be black and white and think they can just wash their hands of things they don't like without inconveniencing themselves, but that is absolutely not the case and never has been. anyone who claims to oppose anti-gay views while still giving chick-fil-a their patronage is either lying or a fool.

There is no distinction whatsoever. Whether you're buying a product from a company that donates to causes you don't agree with or the sales from another product end up in the paychecks of people who then use their money to support those same causes. Or whether any of that ends up as tax revenue which pays for policies you don't agree with, it's all the same. Your morale obligation stops when services are rendered, e.g., nuclear bombs, public schools, the war on drugs, health care, and even chicken sandwiches. Eventually all the money you will ever spend will pass through the coffers of organizations you disagree with. If you can't recognize that it is not your responsibility what other people do with their money then you'll just have to deal with it or opt out of the economy entirely.
you are a fucking idiot. people like you are the reason this shit happens in the first place. i know you libertarian sorts love to sit around thinking your moral responsibility is something that can just arbitrarily end, but anyone with a single grain of common fucking sense realises this is not the case. if it wasn't for that line of thinking they wouldn't have any money to back that cause with in the first place. the actions you claim to be completely separated from are possible entirely because you, and other morally bankrupt people who value their stupid personal convenience above all else, provided the money to make it happen. it doesn't fucking matter worth a single damn whether you donated that money or exchanged it for goods or services rendered, it came from you and it is your fault. you are morally responsible. it takes arrogance of an incredible magnitude to unironically believe that even though it is your money being used to cause whatever effect, you are somehow not to blame. this isn't money eventually reaching something bad after a lot of fucking around, this is money going from you, to a middleman, directly to something bad.

do you blame other people for all your personal failings, too? or do you only shift the blame in this situation?

It wasn't a point... unless you think work and paychecks have nothing to do with each other.
ohhhh nooo poor libertarian babby has to pay a fucking fraction of the taxes paid by citizens in less backwards countries and can't afford his fifth swimming pool, boo hoo hoo

The only appropriate answer they could have given would be "We're a restaurant, we serve chicken. This issue has nothing to do with chicken." I mean, seriously who would want to associate a fast food franchise with a political idea, ESPECIALLY seeing as it alienates a significant portion of the population who might otherwise want to eat their shitty sandwiches or whatever. Answer: someone with a surplus of chromosomes. That's like saying that Toys R us supports the notion that the holocaust never happened; it's just bad business.

People in this country like to throw their precious opinions into the public sphere, no matter who gets hurt in the process (I am now ranting). That's all well and good, be a bigot if you must. But why, oh why do people think it's okay to force those things into litigation? Law should be conserved (dare I use the C word in a political context?) for protecting people from harm, and regulating the economy. When Bills are submitted to be signed into law, the lawmaker should stop and think about how that bill falls under those criteria. Banning gays from marrying neither protects anyone from harm, nor is it an economic boon. Therefore, it should not even be considered worthy of a place on the ballot. Above all else, even popular opinion, logic must prevail, because people are fucking morons and will fire votes out of their ass in whatever direction fox news says to.
precisely

Emmzee

August 9th, 2012, 06:01 PM

lol

Roostervier

August 9th, 2012, 06:25 PM

not at all. if you support them monetarily, and they support something else monetarily (not just verbally), then you are pretty fucking clearly supporting whatever it is they are giving their money to. whether it's direct or indirect makes no fucking difference, a part of your money is going to that cause. it is a pretty convenient feat of cognitive dissonance to claim you don't support those views when your own money is being used to finance their spreading.
If this is true then why are taxes exempt from this again? Is it because you pay taxes and you couldn't bare it if you realized your money was going to the funding of other's pain, suffering, and even deaths--or maybe the mere fact that you're a hypocrite? Taxes do not have to be paid. If you build your own home on your own land, grow and kill all your own food, and receive no income, you are exempt from paying taxes. If you pay taxes, then you are monetarily supporting the government in committing wrong doings against others in some way or another. Therefore everyone here that isn't so poor that they have next to no income or that enjoy the securities and comfortably of modern life are equally as guilty as those who eat at Chick-Fil-A.

If the above is not true, then why are we having this conversation at all? It's probably because you're being your typical unreasonable opinionated self and can never admit you're wrong. You can't have it wrong in one case and okay in another ross, if you monetarily support an entity that uses that money for wrong doing and that makes you as guilty as them, then paying taxes is literally doing just that. Get the fuck over it

Emmzee

August 9th, 2012, 06:45 PM

^^ this guy legitimately defends hitler so take that into account every time you read his posts

Taxes do not have to be paid.
they do if you want to function as a part of real society with normal people

just wondering do you support ron paul

rossmum

August 9th, 2012, 06:49 PM

hmmmm let me see, oh right property sales taxes wow gosh fuck it's almost like you can't get through life without paying taxes at some point without squatting and opening yourself up to trouble with the law

e/

although in real countries, those below taxable income can receive help from the government so they do not pay income tax at all, and receive money rather than give it, so i guess by your logic that is even better than becoming a literal hermit since they are taking money away from potential horrible things rather than giving it

Emmzee

August 9th, 2012, 06:52 PM

If this is true then why are taxes exempt from this again? Is it because you pay taxes and you couldn't bare it if you realized your money was going to the funding of other's pain, suffering, and even deaths--or maybe the mere fact that you're a hypocrite? Taxes do not have to be paid. If you build your own home on your own land, grow and kill all your own food, and receive no income, you are exempt from paying taxes. If you pay taxes, then you are monetarily supporting the government in committing wrong doings against others in some way or another. Therefore everyone here that isn't so poor that they have next to no income or that enjoy the securities and comfortably of modern life are equally as guilty as those who eat at Chick-Fil-A.

If the above is not true, then why are we having this conversation at all? It's probably because you're being your typical unreasonable opinionated self and can never admit you're wrong. You can't have it wrong in one case and okay in another ross, if you monetarily support an entity that uses that money for wrong doing and that makes you as guilty as them, then paying taxes is literally doing just that. Get the fuck over it
legit question do you even do your own taxes or does your mom do them for you

rossmum

August 9th, 2012, 07:01 PM

ps: the only taxes i pay are goods and services taxes, which are unavoidable unless you create or gather literally everything you need yourself, which is fairly ridiculous even assuming you live out in the country as some sort of survivalist. have fun hunting australian wildlife for food, using only what you can make.

so yeah, tell me more about what a hypocrite i am, especially given the government has likely given me more money over my adult life than i have ever given them

rossmum

August 9th, 2012, 07:03 PM

pps: my government doesn't actively encourage anti-gay movements, or give money to radical lobby groups which encourage developing nations to stone gays to death

TeeKup

August 9th, 2012, 07:19 PM

I stopped eating at Chik-fil-a a LONG time ago because of this. They're only recently getting wide media coverage :/

DarkHalo003

August 9th, 2012, 09:38 PM

But we have to protect our traditions based on Christian cults the sheltered, bubbled children who are taught our cultish traditions to the point of theological blindness innocent!

I hope to God you guys read that as sarcasm. Just saying.

TVTyrant

August 9th, 2012, 09:54 PM

I don't really get the hate on Christians

Then again I had never seen a bible in my house until my brother got interested in it

As in reading it, not as in he's a Christy one.

DarkHalo003

August 10th, 2012, 01:52 AM

Bodzilla

August 10th, 2012, 02:28 AM

i hate it when religions tone things down to appeal to wider audiences.

Stonings and witch Burnings have been WAY down. It's just not the same.

rossmum

August 10th, 2012, 07:38 AM

I hate on Christians because I am one. It was never intended to be an institution like it is now. In biblical and historical texts, church simply meant the populace that held a belief. I'm not a conventional Christian and I'm hardly religious because of how sick the church makes me in all of its politics and other bullcrap. It's all just one massive clique.

There are a lot of Christians, but then there are Christians that don't use their brains past what their church tells them. It's really hard to hold a conversation with these people half of the time, especially when explaining how messed up the church is. It's not that they're all bad (some of them are the nicest people I know), it's just that they've been raised in a bubble and haven't had the need to think beyond it.

TLDR: The Christian Church of today says "ASSIMILATE" and that's not what it's supposed to be like. It's supposed to be scattered across the world and shared to people in a harmonious way. You know, like back when opinions/beliefs/outlooks/views could be shared without insulting anyone and people would actually adopt them.
good post.

the church has become a political entity with its own little goals and ideals these days, which more often than not have little or nothing to do with actual biblical text. fearful conservative assholes cherrypick the passages that seem to justify their bigotry while simultaneously ignoring those which condemn it. the biggest example of religion becoming politicised is the catholic chuch - the fucking vatican had its own private military for quite a long time which it would use to achieve political goals, not strictly religious ones - and the wealth goes to the clergy, not the people who need it.

if jesus came back today he'd be violently ill seeing what christianity has become.

(disclaimer: i am not particularly religious at all, the whole 'jesus coming back' part is of course just hypothetical reasoning based on what christians believe)

sleepy1212

August 10th, 2012, 01:15 PM

people like you are the reason this shit happens in the first place.

I guess you think I'm responsible for your shitty opinions.

Sorry everyone, really...I am.

rossmum

August 10th, 2012, 02:27 PM

Roostervier

August 10th, 2012, 03:14 PM

legit question do you even do your own taxes or does your mom do them for you
I do my own.

ps: the only taxes i pay are goods and services taxes, which are unavoidable unless you create or gather literally everything you need yourself, which is fairly ridiculous even assuming you live out in the country as some sort of survivalist. have fun hunting australian wildlife for food, using only what you can make.

so yeah, tell me more about what a hypocrite i am, especially given the government has likely given me more money over my adult life than i have ever given them
So guilt is adjustably scaled by convenience then I guess? It isn't convenient for you to have to get your own food is it? You never have the time, you simply can't avoid paying someone else for food can you? You know, that's kinda funny, reminds me of an argument we've been having lately in this very thread (this is the most direct example I can make of your hypocrisy, I'm spelling it out because I don't trust you to fucking get it).

If paying an entity for a good or a service means you (and not them) monetarily support any of their causes, this must hold true in all cases. I don't get what's so hard for you to understand. Personally my view is that once the money leaves my hands, it is now theirs, meaning they are monetarily supporting whatever efforts they want. If I am giving them money for the expressed purpose of them handing it on down the line for some cause then wouldn't it just make more sense to monetarily support said cause directly? Otherwise, they're just spending the money they earned on whatever the fuck they want to.

pps: my government doesn't actively encourage anti-gay movements, or give money to radical lobby groups which encourage developing nations to stone gays to death
How did I know you were going to say this? BY THE WAY, MY GOVERNMENT ISN'T DOING WHAT CHICK-FIL-A IS SPECIFICALLY, SO WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. Please tell me you aren't this fucking stupid. Can you not see things on a macro-level, is it too difficult for you? Jesus Christ it's like I'm arguing with an arrogant cunt of a five year old.

haha, yes, shitty opinions. tell me more about how it's not your fault that your money is being used for objectively awful purposes, with your full knowledge and implicit consent, since you voluntarily purchased something you didn't actually need with it anyway. If you're going to throw around the word "need", you need to define it. Technically you could just grow and catch all your food so you don't really need it.

if you knew some business was throwing money al-qaeda but they made a product you liked (but could obtain elsewhere, or make yourself), i suppose you'd have no qualms funding them too? BUT I MEAN THEY'RE NOT SO THAT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT MAN

=sw=warlord

August 10th, 2012, 03:58 PM

Jesus Christ it's like I'm arguing with an arrogant cunt of a five year old.

Coming from the person who seems to think the Jews are the cause of the worlds problems, you aren't exactly in the best position to be talking about arguing with ignorant people.

rossmum

August 10th, 2012, 04:34 PM

So guilt is adjustably scaled by convenience then I guess? It isn't convenient for you to have to get your own food is it? You never have the time, you simply can't avoid paying someone else for food can you? You know, that's kinda funny, reminds me of an argument we've been having lately in this very thread (this is the most direct example I can make of your hypocrisy, I'm spelling it out because I don't trust you to fucking get it).
if/when i find out someone is doing something i do not like, i do not continue to purchase anything from them. does this mean i may be supporting things i don't like without actually being aware of it? yes, i quite possibly am. on the other hand, i am not throwing up my hands and saying 'well fuck it i'll continue buying from them anyway'. not really comparable.

If paying an entity for a good or a service means you (and not them) monetarily support any of their causes, this must hold true in all cases. I don't get what's so hard for you to understand. Personally my view is that once the money leaves my hands, it is now theirs, meaning they are monetarily supporting whatever efforts they want. If I am giving them money for the expressed purpose of them handing it on down the line for some cause then wouldn't it just make more sense to monetarily support said cause directly? Otherwise, they're just spending the money they earned on whatever the fuck they want to.
my government does things i don't like but as i said, they are making a net loss on me. i also do not see how excluding myself completely from human society will do anything but make the situation worse as one less person is able to protest over the use of said money. see later in post.

How did I know you were going to say this? BY THE WAY, MY GOVERNMENT ISN'T DOING WHAT CHICK-FIL-A IS SPECIFICALLY, SO WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. Please tell me you aren't this fucking stupid. Can you not see things on a macro-level, is it too difficult for you? Jesus Christ it's like I'm arguing with an arrogant cunt of a five year old.
this is a pretty awesome bit of cognitive dissonance right here, even after you blew the lid on your whole 'pretend to hate jews' thing. you must be pretty fucking stupid to have missed the huge part about more of their money coming to me than mine going to them (and by the way, even if i went and lived as a hunter-gatherer hermit, i would almost certainly have to pay at least one instance of goods and services tax either to get to that stage or to sustain it so your example is not exactly the best)

i am assuming you have no fucking idea how to make it more than a few days outside of civilisation, though, so i fully expect you to try and deny this

If you're going to throw around the word "need", you need to define it. Technically you could just grow and catch all your food so you don't really need it.
you need food. you may have a pathological need of shittily-cooked chicken. you can do this yourself. you do not 'need' chick-fil-a specifically any more than you need a ford car instead of a gmc, or a samsung tv instead of a sony tv (or indeed a car or tv at all)

BUT I MEAN THEY'RE NOT SO THAT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT MAN
not at all, unlike the difference between social responsibility and supporting a private entity simply because you like their brand name of shitty fast food more than you like another brand name of shitty fast food. if you want to go live in a cave and die at age 40 of a preventable disease or of exposure, go right the fuck ahead and don't let me stop you. on the other hand, some of us consider it more constructive to try and change things rather than running away and hiding from them.

ps - i'm not sure if you're still on your 'deliberately try to be the dead opposite of ross' gimmick or if you are legitimately posting, i'm just going to respond as if to the latter because between all the truly, mind-numbingly stupid posts that happen on this forum it's getting really hard to spot fakeposts

rossmum

August 10th, 2012, 04:41 PM

i mean i can understand the argument that paying taxes and shit is optional, i just think it's a really fucking stupid one

let's look at the 'options' and their consequences:

-don't pay taxes and live as a hermit, well have fun with never being able to interact socially or influence anything at all, you may as well literally end your own life because for all intents and purposes you no longer exist as a person. this is a legitimately enormous thing.
-don't buy food from chick-fil-a, and have to live without a particular brand of fast food. you may have to find another outlet with similar products, or simply cook them yourself. oh no. what a huge blow to your life. arguing this is no different is fucking retarded, it clearly is.

then again i'm arguing with the same people who somehow think total deregulation of commercial entities will magically solve all the world's problems, so i guess logic and reason mean nothing here

e/ well in sleepy's case, since i can't even tell the difference between rooster's gimmickposts and his realposts any more so i have no fucking clue what he actually thinks

TVTyrant

August 10th, 2012, 08:50 PM

I'd live as a Hermit if I could

But I don't have enough money :-3

Emmzee

August 10th, 2012, 09:24 PM

I do my own.
but you dont need to do them!!! YOURE PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JackalStomper

August 12th, 2012, 03:35 AM

the local pizza hut got torn down and a chick fil a is getting built in its place

fml

TVTyrant

August 12th, 2012, 04:02 AM

fuck all you fag hatting mutherfuackers

i just found out tonight that my best friend's brother is gay

apparently that means i have to do something to help fags now

so fuck chick fil aye

god i love drunk posting

Kornman00

August 12th, 2012, 09:02 AM

:beer:

:protarget:

El Lobo

August 12th, 2012, 04:14 PM

Guys, he drank alcohol.

Emmzee

August 12th, 2012, 06:45 PM

didnt you get killed irl by someone who was drinking alcohol

El Lobo

August 12th, 2012, 07:23 PM

Good point Emzee, forgot all about that. Stay away from the whiskey, guys.

Emmzee

August 12th, 2012, 07:32 PM

dont worry lobo i will never forget your death

rip 1991-2005

Zeph

August 12th, 2012, 08:18 PM

dont worry lobo i will never forget your death

rip 1991-2005

taken from us too soon :lobo:

El Lobo

August 12th, 2012, 09:56 PM

Born 1989 by the way, I didn't get fake killed by a fake drunk driver when I got into a fake accident with him when I was only 14. Couldn't fake drive at such a young age of course.

Bodzilla

August 12th, 2012, 10:14 PM

nvr 4gt

sleepy1212

August 13th, 2012, 09:24 AM

haha, yes, shitty opinions. tell me more about how it's not your fault that your money is being used for objectively awful purposes, with your full knowledge and implicit consent, since you voluntarily purchased something you didn't actually need with it anyway.

They've also supported the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, breast cancer charities, etc... so If I stopped eating their chicken then, by your reasoning, I would also be actively against Habitat for Humanity, etc...

...i suppose you'd have no qualms...

I do...I won't eat there anymore...the place is run by idiots.

Not because it's my moral responsibility... it isn't. I just makes me feel better.

Emmzee

August 13th, 2012, 10:17 AM

I just don't eat at Chick-fil-A because that shit's really expensive and I'm legitimately right on the poverty line.

DarkHalo003

August 13th, 2012, 12:22 PM

I just don't eat at Chick-fil-A because that shit's really expensive and I'm legitimately right on the poverty line.
The real fucking truth.

rossmum

August 13th, 2012, 01:17 PM

They've also supported the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, breast cancer charities, etc... so If I stopped eating their chicken then, by your reasoning, I would also be actively against Habitat for Humanity, etc...
no, that is not 'my reasoning' at all, because there are thousands of other places that support those things without also supporting obnoxious filth.

you can support them directly, or via a less morally bankrupt middleman. not supporting a company who supports something doesn't mean you are against what it supports, but supporting one that does support something means that you either support what they do, or consider your own convenience more important than standing up for what you really believe in, which means you may as well not fucking believe in it in the first place.

as for it being 'not my moral responsibility', well... we've seen what happens over and over in history when someone decides not to speak up simply because it's not them being persecuted. it's a despicably selfish attitude, though given your posting history, i'm not surprised. typical 'fuck you, got mine'.