Support NeoGAF

[krypt0nian]

Oh, so we're namecalling now. That's mature.

That isn't name calling. If you do this, you are corrupt. You're rationalizing denying basic human rights for chicken.

That is fucked up and you should know that. But something went horribly wrong I your upbringing.

I want to once again draw you to Stump's post. I think he addressed this flawed line of reasoning as well as any.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=40055544#post40055544

He's using false equivs. It's pretty intoxicating.

 

[Vermillion]

Tragedy of the commons. That and some bystander effect. We assume someone else will take care of it, but that line of thought takes thwle place of a limited resource... everyone can't think the same way.

Yes it is. Less than a penny isn't going to change anything and you damn well know it.

How many people have said this in this thread thusfar? One by one you add up you know.

I'm magic. Other tricks cost money, boys and girls.

 

[LaserBuddha]

wow...wow...

Is that code for "I got nothing"? Being coy about it isn't convincing me of anything else.

Really, what's actively offending me more in this thread than any of this talk about anti-gay rights organizations is the sanctimonious bullshit you're starting to spew in your last few posts.

 

[Valnen]

That isn't name calling. If you do this, you are corrupt. You're rationalizing denying basic human rights for chicken.

That is fucked up and you should know that. But something went horribly wrong I your upbringing.

And what is you calling me corrupt over and over again supposed to accomplish? What is your goal?

 

[ivysaur12]

It's not a silly thought experiment. It's challenging your assertion that there are only moral absolutes. Can you answer the question? Because i asked which person was better (or worse) when it comes to their moral standing on homosexual rights. I'm trying to get you to apply your extremely simple logic to a complicated reality. I noticed you completely ignored my other questions in that post so I won't press them further.


It's one thing to deny something, it's another to be sarcastic about when you said in plain English that you were doing that.
Is this supposed to mean something?

It's not a complicated reality. Don't shop there. And yes, it is a silly thought experiment. This is a black and white issue.

 

[krypt0nian]

Is that code for "I got nothing"? Being coy about it isn't convincing me of anything else.

Really, what's actively offending me more in this thread than any of this talk about anti-gay rights organizations is the sanctimonious bullshit you're starting to spew in your last few posts.

It's code for you're spouting nonsense because you actually thought someone was making a Physical list. I'm not sure where to go with someone like you to get a resolution.


Sanctimonious is a word people use when they are on the wrong side of a moral issue. Playing devils advocate is lunacy here.

And what is you calling me corrupt over and over again supposed to accomplish? What is your goal?

No goal now. You seem entrenched in your ways and that's a sad thing. Do some reflection and try and change who you are.

 

[SerArthurDayne]

That would have been an awesome attitude for the North to take in the Civil War... Right?

I'm not even sure what exactly you are trying to imply here, but you certainly shouldn't be talking about false equivalencies after you have posted this.

 

[Valnen]

No goal now. You seem entrenched in your ways and that's a sad thing. Do some reflection and try and change who you are.

Making a person angry isn't a good way to try and change them.

 

[krypt0nian]

Making a person angry isn't a good way to try and change them.

I don't think you have any intention to change as you find a shitty chicken sammich more important than human rights.

I'm not even sure what exactly you are trying to imply here, but you certainly shouldn't be talking about false equivalencies after you have posted this.

You said if it effected you personally you'd feel different. That's not a false equiv at all. Just one that's hard to hear.

 

[LaserBuddha]

It's code for you're spouting nonsense because you actually thought someone was making a Physical list. I'm not sure where to go with someone like you to get a resolution.

You chimed in to tell everyone that you were making a note of who had this particular opinion. Do you not know what those words mean? And then you act haughty at the idea of someone taking seriously something you that you posted with sincerity.

I also never mentioned anything about a physical list, genius.

 

[Vermillion]

Making a person angry isn't a good way to try and change them.

"A soft answer turns away wrath."

 

[krypt0nian]

You chimed in to tell everyone that you were making a note of who had this particular opinion. Do you not know what those words mean? And then you act haughty at the idea of someone taking seriously something you that you posted with sincerity.

I also never mentioned anything about a physical list, genius.

Wow. Sarcasm. You may want to learn if you think someone was making a list you may have issues. Wow...wow.

Again not sure where to go when you type things like that.

 

[Valnen]

I don't think you have any intention to change as you find a shitty chicken sammich more important than human rights.

If you could convince me I was actually doing damage to human rights I might be convinced otherwise.

 

[jaxword]

Valnen literally thinks that by pretending not to see a post that points out his hypocrisy that people won't notice. How gauche.

 

[Devolution]

Making a person angry isn't a good way to try and change them.

Telling people the truth has that affect.

 

[krypt0nian]

If you could convince me I was actually doing damage to human rights I might be convinced otherwise.

I no longer care what's in your head. The rattling is deafening.

 

[LaserBuddha]

It's not a complicated reality. Don't shop there. And yes, it is a silly thought experiment. This is a black and white issue.

I didn't realize it was so easy to dismiss the gray of the real world by simply stating that it isn't there. The fact that you can't address the question itself is quite telling.

 

[krypt0nian]

It's not a complicated reality. Don't shop there. And yes, it is a silly thought experiment. This is a black and white issue.

He's playing a weird game of devils advocate. Don't fall into it.

 

[Jackson]

I don't think you have any intention to change as you find a shitty chicken sammich more important than human rights.

I dunno, own an iPhone? Ever buy a pair of Nikes? How about Levis? Just to name a few things you absolutely shouldn't support if you want to make a stand against human rights.

Also, to be completely fair. Chick-Fil-A is not shitty. Disagreeing with their stances on social matters and opinion of one's sexual preference doesn't impact their deliciousness.

 

[Doctor West]

Making a person angry isn't a good way to try and change them.

Your original post that I responded to was very inflammatory. If you couldn't foresee the debate that it would bring, that's on you. You also have not budged on your stance at all. In a strange way you are trying to act like the persecuted one. This company that you love so much is telling gay people that they are not as valued as everybody else in society and are trying to hinder their progress. That is beyond messed up.

 

[Vermillion]

Telling people the truth has that affect.

Depends on how you break that truth to them.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Wow. Sarcasm. You may want to learn if you think someone was making a list you may have issues. Wow...wow.

Again not sure where to go when you type things like that.

You don't get credit for ineffective sarcasm. If what you originally said was sarcasm, you certainly didn't delivery it in any effective way. Your attempt to say "wow you're crazy", which is completely unearned, falls right in line with the other juvenile tactics you're displaying right now.

He's playing a weird game of devils advocate. Don't fall into it.

A weird game that is a simple question no moral absolutist seems to have the courage to confront. But you call it a trap to disguise your cowardice. If your logic was entirely sound then I couldn't trap you.

 

[MIMIC]

Wow. People are REALLY trying to force the anti-Chick-Fil-A cause onto everyone. As it was mentioned earlier in the thread, there are PLENTY of organizations that have engaged in a lot of morally questionable (and illegal) behavior. But since it's more convenient to boycott CFA, it's apparently a required endeavor.

And (most) people who eat at CFA are buying the food, not actively donating to the cause. If you don't want to eat there then cool; boycotts are fine and dandy. But don't act like it's buying a pitchfork and a Bible.

 

[ivysaur12]

I didn't realize it was so easy to dismiss the gray of the real world by simply stating that it isn't there. The fact that you can't address the question itself is quite telling.

If you buy at Chick-Fil-A and support gay rights, you are being disingenuous and deserved to be judged for it. That all there is to it. There is no moral relativity involved.

 

[krypt0nian]

I dunno, own an iPhone? Ever buy a pair of Nikes? How about Levis? Just to name a few things you absolutely shouldn't support if you want to make a stand against human rights.

Also, to be completely fair. Chick-Fil-A is not shitty. Disagreeing with their stances on social matters doesn't impact their deliciousness.

Look up at Stump's post. Already covered to death.


And congrats on the poor taste in food, I guess.

You don't get credit for ineffective sarcasm. If what you originally said was sarcasm, you certainly didn't delivery it in any effective way. Your attempt to say "wow you're crazy", which is completely unearned, falls right in line with the other juvenile tactics you're displaying right now.

Wow...now you're kinda scary.

 

[Devolution]

I dunno, own an iPhone? Ever buy a pair of Nikes? How about Levis? Just to name a few things you absolutely shouldn't support if you want to make a stand against human rights.

Also, to be completely fair. Chick-Fil-A is not shitty. Disagreeing with their stances on social matters doesn't impact their deliciousness.

Do these companies display the same attitude as Chick Fil-A? Do they flaunt their stances?

No.

Same bullshit, different posters trying to rationalize eating at an establishment that is anti-gay and proud of it.

Wow. People are REALLY trying to force the anti-Chick-Fil-A cause onto everyone. As it was mentioned earlier in the thread, there are PLENTY of organizations that have engaged in a lot of morally questionable (and illegal) behavior. But since it's more convenient to boycott CFA, it's apparently a required endeavor.

And (most) people who eat at CFA are buying the food, not actively donating to the cause. If you don't want to eat there then cool; boycotts are fine and dandy. But don't act like it's buying a pitchfork and a Bible.

Funding stuff like Prop 8 you might as well.

 

[Yaboosh]

This isn't debatable. You're corrupt.




Nonsense. Continue on with your false equivelencies if it makes you feel good about it. Reveals much.

Can you explain how it is a false equivalency again?


Edit: Stump's post certainly doesn't explain how it is a false equivalency. It explains how it is easier for you to stop eating at Chick Fil A instead of stop using your iphone.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I don't disagree with what you or Stup posted, but I still find it terrible that we as members of the human race allow ourselves to be duped and corralled into choosing the lesser of two evils...

That makes us no better than the person saying chicken is more important than the happiness of gay people.

You are making a very false equivalence.

Company A is in a competitive industry, and donates significant funds to and publicly advocates against gay marriage and rights. I choose not to buy from them, opting for their competitors. (For what it's worth, I try to buy local, avoiding chains such as McDonald's as well.)

Company B sells a computer that has some components made in factories in China - along with the entire rest of the industry. This company endorses gay marriage and works with their manufacturing partners to improve labor conditions for the manufacture of their components with their supply chain partners.

You are saying that by buying from Company B, I am doing "no better" than by buying from Company A. This is not the case.

I feel like this has been explained clearly and I'm simply rewording Stump's point, but it's the best I can do.

Wow. People are REALLY trying to force the anti-Chick-Fil-A cause onto everyone. As it was mentioned earlier in the thread, there are PLENTY of organizations that have engaged in a lot of morally questionable (and illegal) behavior. But since it's more convenient to boycott CFA, it's apparently a required endeavor.

And as many others have said, when we learn of those things, we stop giving those establishments our dollars. Chik-Fil-A is just the company we are currently discussing.

And (most) people who eat at CFA are buying the food, not actively donating to the cause. If you don't want to eat there then cool; boycotts are fine and dandy. But don't act like it's buying a pitchfork and a Bible.

Well, it's knowingly giving money to a company that advocates bigotry with words and dollars. So there's that.

 

[krypt0nian]

Can you explain how it is a false equivalency again?

Stump did a fine job already. It's been quoted over and over.

 

[Sai-kun]

Funding stuff like Prop 8 you might as well.

As well as funding programs that basically vilify LBGT (but I think especially gay male) people. Hooray! We're demons!

 

[Yaboosh]

Stump did a fine job already. It's been quoted over and over.

Which post again? The one I read did not do a great job of it.

 

[Valnen]

I no longer care what's in your head. The rattling is deafening.

I see, so you were just looking to flame people on the internet the whole time.

 

[Unbounded]

So by this logic, anybody who buys gas is also in support of the Saudi Arabic tradition of treating women as property. Let's boycott gas! If you don't then you hate women.

Actually, this is a pretty interesting point here. With this knowledge, would you just stop buying gas? Or would you consider the benefits of using gas to be greater than the cost?

 

[SerArthurDayne]

I don't think you have any intention to change as you find a shitty chicken sammich more important than human rights.



You said if it effected you personally you'd feel different. That's not a false equiv at all. Just one that's hard to hear.

You will have to explain what you were trying to imply a bit more, but I absolutely did not say that.

I said I care enough about it personally to boycott. I also said that I am not going to judge or condemn a person as morally corrupt simply because they choose not to boycott, for whatever reason.

I even carved out an exception and said I would condemn them for doing so because of the policy.

And then, as a last comment I acknowledged my bias (or lack thereof?). I don't have a ton of interaction with gay people on a regular basis, so the effects of this are not something I see on a personal level.

I then said, that even if I did have more of that, I don't think it would change my opinion that others are morally corrupt for choosing not to boycott.

That is certainly not to say you can't encourage them to boycott. For example, instead of haranguing Valnen as morally corrupt you could try to convince him.

I don't think you will, but that doesn't mean you can't try.

He is a good example, in that his posts bring up several reasons Cyan mentioned earlier about why people may choose not to. He doesn't think it will make a difference, he doesn't think his contribution matters, and of late, he is simply hostile to the manner in which you are trying to convince him.

edit: Some of Valnen and Laser's posts have run together in my head, so you'll have to excuse me if I mischaracterized Valnen as making all of those arguments. And I forgot to mention the core of his argument is that because of the above reasons he didn't feel it rose to the level of denying himself the occasional craving.

 

[krypt0nian]

Which post again? The one I read did not do a great job of it.

Well then appeal to him. I found it argument ending as did most others.

 

[Yaboosh]

Well then appeal to him. I found it argument ending as did most others.

Well I guess that is one way to win an argument. Just say you won. Ok, cool.

 

[krypt0nian]

Well I guess that is one way to win an argument. Just say you won. Ok, cool.

No one wins on the Internet. Did you think it was going to happen here?

I found it more than enough. You didn't. Lovely.

 

[Unbounded]

Do these companies display the same attitude as Chick Fil-A? Do they flaunt their stances?

No.

I have to ask, what exactly did you expect them to do? They would either A: Deny it and get called out on their bull, causing an EVEN WORSE shitstorm where they come off as sleazy as well as being anti-gay. Or B: Do what they did and just admit to what they're doing.

I mean, we can't expect them to simply stop. Their only option would've been to lie or tell the truth. They chose the second option.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Actually, this is a pretty interesting point here. With this knowledge, would you just stop buying gas? Or would you consider the benefits of using gas to be greater than the cost?

Personally, it is one of many reasons that fuel economy is the single most important criteria when I look for a new car. I use as little gas as possible for my own pocketbook, and so as to draw as little demand as possible for the product. It is my only option, as other transportation options are not available to me, particularly when traveling to work.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Wow...now you're kinda scary.

Well, so many tries and never got you to address anything directly. I hope after so many posts like this you've at least convinced yourself that I'm just typing a bunch of unintelligible nonsense. You sure are a coward when it comes to being challenged, for all the pushyness you're displaying. Good luck with your inquisition.

 

[Vermillion]

Look up at Stump's post. Already covered to death.


And congrats on the poor taste in food, I guess.



Wow...now you're kinda scary.

Stump also said he wouldn't necessarily look in a CFA and judge everyone there. He said it should cause us to reflect, and think on who this affects, and for us to be the change we want to see.

If people choose to vote for gay rights, support LGBT causes and things like that, do you teally need to judge them for eating at a restaurant?

 

[krypt0nian]

Well, so many tries and never got you to address anything directly. I hope after so many posts like this you've at least convinced yourself that I'm just typing a bunch of unintelligible nonsense. You sure are a coward when it comes to being challenged, for all the plushness you're displaying.

You can't accept that it was sarcasm and have wasted post after post trying to "win". You've challenged me? On a sarcastic post?

I find that at this point more than scary and at the harassment level. I think you are now obsessed and frankly a little out of touch.

You can either believe that it was sarcasm, or not. You've proven that you have little self control.

Stump also said he wouldn't necessarily look in a CFA and judge everyone there. He said it should cause us to reflect, and think on who this affects, and for us to be the change we want to see.

If people choose to vote for gay rights, support LGBT causes and things like that, do you teally need to judge them for eating at a restaurant?

If they are supporting an openly hateful corp with their dollars, of course. I'm sorry you don't see that, but that's neither here not there.

 

[Sai-kun]

Personally, it is one of many reasons that fuel economy is the single most important criteria when I look for a new car. I use as little gas as possible for my own pocketbook, and so as to draw as little demand as possible for the product. It is my only option, as other transportation options are not available to me, particularly when traveling to work.

if its that importan to u why dont u just get a job where you dont have to use it????????? obviouly ghal ugh cmon son

 

[EYEL1NER]

Wow, I just found out that the people who own and run the Golfland arcades donated a significant amount of money to the 'Yes on 8' campaign.
It's been my dream to go to a Golfland for years after reading the tourney results in Tips and Tricks magazine when I was younger. I always wanted to go challenge Duc Do to a game of Marvel vs Capcom 2.

 

[Shinjica]

This company work on sunday too? Because if it's right they are hypocrite

 

[SerArthurDayne]

This company work on sunday too? Because if it's right they are hypocrite

No, they are closed.

 

[Vermillion]

This company work on sunday too? Because if it's right they are hypocrite

Actually, they're closed on Sundays.

EDIT: Damn.

 

[Dead Man]

Actually, this is a pretty interesting point here. With this knowledge, would you just stop buying gas? Or would you consider the benefits of using gas to be greater than the cost?

Not really the same thing.

 

[jaxword]

No one wins on the Internet.

This is the most accurate and honest post in this thread. It doesn't look like a single person has been convinced to change their mind in this thread, regardless of the arguments being presented as poignantly and eloquently as possible or typical smug internet back and forths.

Sometimes it's better to cut losses and realize you're not going to convince people, but at least their horrible stance can be publicly vilified.

 

[EYEL1NER]

This company work on sunday too? Because if it's right they are hypocrite

Nope, they don't.

If people choose to vote for gay rights, support LGBT causes and things like that, do you teally need to judge them for eating at a restaurant?

Obviously some people need to.
Because the people you are describing secretly don't want gay rights.