Support NeoGAF

[LaserBuddha]

You can't accept that it was sarcasm and have wasted post after post trying to "win"

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.

Good luck with that then. I admit I addressed you a couple of times more than I normally would, but the dichotomy of your aggressiveness in this thread, and your cop-out tactics when being challenged yourself is grating. To clarify, I accepted your word that it was sarcasm, but you acted like I was stupid/crazy for not knowing from the outset, when it was you who established no context that you weren't serious.

But what do I know, I've been talking to you for a whole page so I'm a stalker.

 

[Vermillion]

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.

It's been established many times. But kinder responses may go a longer way in helping in the future. People especially hate admitting being wrong to people they consider assholes.

 

[Yaboosh]

Because the people you are describing secretly don't want gay rights.

Hah. It is so secret they themselves don't know that they don't want gay rights!

 

[Vermillion]

Nope, they don't.


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

Why do you assume that?

 

[Hoo-doo]

It's mindblowing to me that companies actually make statements like this. That such crap is even tolerated.
It's like the entire country is living 50 years in the past.

 

[LaserBuddha]

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.

That's doesnt address my question. My question was who is worse? It's a black and white issue, so either you're a good person or a complete asshole. So if the guy who ate at Chick-Fil-A but contributed astronomically more to pro-gay organizations is a complete asshole, is the neutral guy also a complete asshole for doing less to help gay rights? Or is he a good person just for not putting a tenth of a penny in some anti-gay lobbyist's pocket? Im asking you how you apply your binary categorization of humanity to these two people. Im offering you a chance to show that there one thing in the world, this thing, which is black and white.

No worries, one more non-answer and I'll consider the conclusion drawn.

 

[Unbounded]

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

So by your sarcasm I can assume you agree that these situations are never truly black or white? It's a similar argument to what's being used by the posters in the "If you don't boycott Chik-Fil-A, you don't support gay rights" camp.

It IS still possible to do two relatively conflicting actions of different magnitude and still have one essentially "overpower" the other, is it not?

 

[Trent Strong]

Nope, they don't.


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

Ha, ha, ha.

 

[AlteredBeast]

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.

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that it is sad that we decide on any choice at all. Why choose evil ever, if only for the convenience of it? I know the answer to this question, btw, but mine is and was rhetorical in nature. Does nobody find it sad that we just accept shit over shittier because of convenience? Man's Search for Meaning all over again.

I find your last two posts condescending, as well. If you intended them to be, so be it.

 

[FyreWulff]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...y-charged-company-president-article-1.1116841

I like how he wasn't happy just being a turd, he had to throw in shitting on people that leave a terrible relationship with the "married to our first wives" line.

 

[Visualante2]

Like some Denis Dyack for and against bullshit going on. Why do corporations have so much influence over politics? Why do people care? It's natural that a country like America with strong Christian roots is going to divide people on something like gay rights. Can't we just cut down to the fat and say "the people want [X or Y]"?

 

[Jackson]

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


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

It's pretty reductionist to assume that companies have the same control over third-world labour conditions as they do over the values they actually espouse whole-heartedly. The Chinese labour problem is very complicated and there's not going to be an overnight solution. It's not as easy as multiplying wages by ten overnight.

But even then, let us imagine that Acer and ASUS made identical parts and ASUS proudly used amputee orphan slave labour and Acer paid employees a fair wage and supported development and social justice causes... You better believe I'd pick Acer. That's the situation here. None of their competitors (except maybe In-n-Out) would say anything like this or spend money on causes like this.

Having read Stumps post I have to say I disagree. Companies like Apple can either choose to work with companies like Foxconn or they can choose to work with companies in countries where human labor laws aren't archaic like say in the US or Canada.

However companies like Apple choose to willingly (and knowingly) work with these 3rd world companies simply because of their higher profit margins due to cheap labor. Worst still is the ultimate reason why they work with these companies. Their own personal shares in their company will be smaller if they work with fair trade unions, and thus they will be less wealthy. Not poor mind you, but just less wealthy.

And here's the real problem. We all know it. No one is hiding these facts, sweatshops and globalization of outsourcing is forefront everyday. And no one cares. Why? Because their iPhones would cost $50 more and Apple shares would go down bout 30%. Who wants that? We don't see the Chinese children who work 18 hour days with deformed hands from carpal tunnel. We don't see Foxconn putting up anti-suicide jumping nets to deter their employees from committing suicide because it's a better option than working for Foxconn.

My point stands. If you're going to get upset about boycotting Chick-Fil-A you really need to go whole hog and boycott everything else.

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

Still no.

 

[Unbounded]

Not really the same thing.

And why exactly is that?

 

[krypt0nian]

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.

I broke my fairly new rule of never arguing on the net with crazy people. I'm trying to do better, but sometimes it's hard when they try and say red is green. But then I guess that's my clue that they are crazy and I should stop.


Jackson, disagree all you like.

 

[jaxword]

It's been established many times. But kinder responses may go a longer way in helping in the future. People especially hate admitting being wrong to people they consider assholes.

Maybe, but I don't share your optimism of humanity. In fact, the more I see of people, the more I think that public shaming really IS the only way to get people to change their minds. Note I am not condoning it or saying that's how it should be, only that it seems to be the only effective model.

In theory, people should be convinced by those arguments that are put forth by more rational and intelligent people than themselves, yes?

But if that were true, we'd have no political, religious, social, etc. debates. People would realize what is best for the society on the whole.

But we do have debates. Intense, heels-dug-in, refuse to budge regardless of ANY logic or argument debates.

It seems that humans have a weakness to social pressures versus a resistance to reason and logic. Strange, that.


In any case, debating with people online is generally pointless, and as long as you accept that, you won't get too involved. If I ever debate, it's not to actually debate with THAT person, it's for the audience who isn't participating and just reading. THEY are the ones who may be swayed, like swing voters.

 

[Ikael]

Count me on the "glad to see open bigotry" camp. So tired of the "you know, it is not as if I hate gays irrationally or out of disgust, but they can bring down the very fiber of society and give children aids" type of self desilusional reasoning. They are free to be anti gay bigots, and I am free to decide stop eating at their restaurant. Sounds fair enough, once everyone has their cards up in the table.

 

[Devolution]

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

Sexy fuckin' demons.

 

[krypt0nian]

Sexy fuckin' demons.

The very best!

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Incorrect. Try again.

No, it's completely true. It's hypocritical to selectively boycott specific companies when there are dozens of other companies that those same people support that have the same (or worse) views. For the argument that it's "easier" to boycott Chick Fil A than it is to boycott (for example) Microsoft, I find it pretty sad that people only feel so worked up about Gay Rights when it's convenient.

Service is independent of beliefs. When I choose a mechanic, it's not because of their political views. I'm going to pay them for the job that they do. However they're going to spend their money afterwards is their business.

Gonna keep referencing this question this til somebody who holds your opinion answers it directly.

If it got that far, it wouldn't matter who was buying from them because they'd be in jail.

I'm a supporter of the LGBT (and all of its variants) movement, but this is ridiculous. The solution to the problem isn't boycotting Chick Fil A and not giving away that one cent per sandwich. It's education and open discussion of the issues. You know why those anti-homosexual advertisements work? Because of ignorance. Spread the word; stop being afraid to openly support LGBT rights and this wouldn't be an issue. Chick Fil A (and religious institutions) will always be against gay marriage. That's fundamental to their beliefs. Just like they should be forced to respect the rights of homosexuals to marry, we should respect their religious beliefs even if they're ridiculous.

 

[EYEL1NER]

Why do you assume that?

Assume what? That they secretly don't want gay rights?
I don't know, that's what I am seeing ITT.
People who may, like you said, vote for gay marriage or do other stuff to further equal rights and eat at Chik-Fil-A are actually against equal rights because of where there money is going.

Like Yaboosh said, some of these people don't even know it. Like myself.
I've voted for gay marriage. While in the military I wrote letters and tried to do the DADT surveys (only got selected once, for some reason the people who were for DADT were the ones randomly selected) in hope of DADT getting repealed. But I eat Chik-Fil-A.

This whole time I didn't even know that I was against equal rights. I suppose I deserve to be judged for my bigotry.

 

[Vermillion]

Maybe, but I don't share your optimism of humanity. In fact, the more I see of people, the more I think that public shaming really IS the only way to get people to change their minds. Note I am not condoning it or saying that's how it should be, only that it seems to be the only effective model.

In theory, people should be convinced by those arguments that are put forth by more rational and intelligent people than themselves, yes?

But if that were true, we'd have no political, religious, social, etc. debates. People would realize what is best for the society on the whole.

But we do have debates. Intense, heels-dug-in, refuse to budge regardless of ANY logic or argument debates.

It seems that humans have a weakness to social pressures versus a resistance to reason and logic. Strange, that.

I have no optimism of humanity

But the fact is that the human mind is prone to focus on the negative over the positive.

When we choose to attack people so that they fall in line, they usually become more stubborn, and less likely to listen to what we or those who come after us have to say in the future.

In the end, these arguments and the anger only end uo hurting both sides. At the very least, if you present your side calmly and logically, you can give up should they not accept it - no harm, instead of responding to every post with vitriol. You make your point and clarify if you need to. But taking black/white stances and effectively making the other side the villain, you don't help them.

That form of argument works in a courtroom, as you try to discredit the opposition and win your case, but if you want discussion where someone learns, it shouldn't be everyone pointing and laughing.

Besides, the other side is less likely to respond with anger if you remain calm and friendly, yourself.

 

[speculawyer]

I never heard of the place. I looked that store locator and the closest one is 60+ miles away. And I doubt they'll be building any closer now. They'll do best to sticking to the Central Valley.

 

[Dark Octave]

A simple answer that can progress from there is, from a Christian standpoint, interracial marriage was allowed. Even under Judaism, it was allowed and that was largely a race based religious nation.

Another difference is cultural scope and significance, but that's a whole other essay.

Let's not even mention that unlike the period when interracial marriage were directly tied to civil rights, most companies now are either pro- or neutral in this battle so as not to offend. After all, they know the fundalmentalist will still shop Walmart. It took a liong tme for Sambo's to not exist. this issue is one primarily because no one can find other prominent companies bold enough to argue it (I've actually tried to find articles to little success). If there is, then the boycott list needs to grow beyond a chicken place.

I guess I interpreted these wrong? That's probably never happened before.

Leviticus 19:19
“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material."

Deuteronomy 7:3
"You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,"

 

[Esiquio]

Telling people the truth has that affect.

You almost sound religious with that level of self-righteousness. Intoxicating, no?

 

[Trent Strong]

I broke my fairly new rule of never arguing on the net with crazy people. I'm trying to do better, but sometimes it's hard when they try and say red is green. But then I guess that's my clue that they are crazy and I should stop.


Jackson, disagree all you like.

Dude, you're arguing that anyone who eats at chick-fi-a is "corrupt"...Are you quite sure you aren't the crazy one? I assume you also think that anyone who buys Ender's Game or Shadow Complex is also "corrupt"? Are you sure you're the rational one here?

 

[ivysaur12]

That's doesnt address my question. My question was who is worse? It's a black and white issue, so either you're a good person or a complete asshole. So if the guy who ate at Chick-Fil-A but contributed astronomically more to pro-gay organizations is a complete asshole, is the neutral guy also a complete asshole for doing less to help gay rights? Or is he a good person just for not putting a tenth of a penny in some anti-gay lobbyist's pocket? Im asking you how you apply your binary categorization of humanity to these two people. Im offering you a chance to show that there one thing in the world, this thing, which is black and white.

No worries, one more non-answer and I'll consider the conclusion drawn.

And again, it's disengenuous to shop there if you support gay rights, no matter how supportive you are of gay rights. But someone who gives an astronomical amount to gay rights organizations would absolutely know not to eat there.

You don't get a bigotry free pass to go to Chick-fil-a. Going there, knowing what they stand for, is inexcusable. And the two situations you bring up have no relation to one another - one is not "worse" or better than the other. Youd need to take a hard look at your life if you donated to pro-equality causes and still went to chick-fil-a. And yes, your thought experiment is dumb and not entirely relevant to the point that it is never okay to shop there if you supplier equality.

 

[Vermillion]

Assume what? That they secretly don't want gay rights?
I don't know, that's what I am seeing ITT.
People who may, like you said, vote for gay marriage or do other stuff to further equal rights and eat at Chik-Fil-A are actually against equal rights because of where there money is going.

Like Yaboosh said, some of these people don't even know it. Like myself.
I've voted for gay marriage. While in the military I wrote letters and tried to do the DADT surveys (only got selected once, for some reason the people who were for DADT were the ones randomly selected) in hope of DADT getting repealed. But I eat Chik-Fil-A.

This whole time I didn't even know that I was against equal rights. I suppose I deserve to be judged for my bigotry.

If all it takes is one act to unravel a bunch of good in your mind (particularly an insignificant one, in my mind - I don't think CFA will stop the inevitable), then I believe you're tallying it wrong.

 

[Monocle]

<snip>

My point stands. If you're going to get upset about boycotting Chick-Fil-A you really need to go whole hog and boycott everything else.

Isn't that a little like saying, "If you want to give a hobo a dollar, you should give every hobo a dollar or else your good deed doesn't count"? Boycotting a discriminatory restaurant chain is more practical than boycotting a tech giant like Apple. Shutting Chick-Fil-A's doors wouldn't stamp out homophobia, but it would advance the cause of equal rights, and that's a worthwhile thing in itself.

Progress by degrees is still progress. Sometimes it's the best approach to solving a big problem.

 

[Dead Man]

And why exactly is that?

One is boycotting a whole energy source that comes from a multitude of suppliers, meaning a boycott impacts suppliers whose stances are not in question, while also being a product that is a relative necessity. The other is boycotting one of a multitude of chicken fast food suppliers.

 

[MIMIC]

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

Er....is that really important? The manner in which they do it? Seems like a double standard to me.

Funding stuff like Prop 8 you might as well.

Does that go for every company, or just CFA? Because I'm going to hell at least 100 times if that's the case.

But that's just the way they feel about marriage. Do they also oppose civil unions?

 

[Acerac]

It's mindblowing to me that companies actually make statements like this. That such crap is even tolerated.
It's like the entire country is living 50 years in the past.

Not the entire country. There are some areas in which I'm not afraid to hold my boyfriend's hand in public. Granted, my own hometown is not one of those areas, and more often than not I don't feel comfortable doing so in public...

10% of the country is more than nothing, right?

 

[krypt0nian]

Dude, you're arguing that anyone who eats at chick-fi-a is "corrupt"...Are you quite sure you aren't the crazy one? I assume you also think that anyone who buys Ender's Game or Shadow Complex is also "corrupt"? Are you sure you're the rational one here?

I'm arguing that anyone that rationalizes their "pennies" to feel good about it is corrupt. I don't feel in any way bad about that. If you donate to someone that is actively trying to deny human rights, you are funding them and thereby supporting an evil.


If that is something you can do, it's terrible. If you do that, you are directly against me in life. This isn't a difficult equation. Though many here seem to want to be as shady as possible.

 

[Unbounded]

One is boycotting a whole energy source that comes from a multitude of suppliers, meaning a boycott impacts suppliers whose stances are not in question, while also being a product that is a relative necessity. The other is boycotting one of a multitude of chicken fast food suppliers.

In that case you're just judging the value of something based off of your own experiences. You can't really decide the value of something for someone else, and it's pretty silly to pretend that everyone else holds the same value for everything that you do, and it's relatively selfish to not consider that in the first place.

 

[krypt0nian]

In that case you're just judging the value of something based off of your own experiences. You can't really decide the value of something for someone else, and it's pretty silly to pretend that everyone else holds the same value for everything that you do, and it's relatively selfish to not consider that in the first place.

People should have different human rights values? Seriously?

Fuck it. I'm done with this shit.

 

[Unbounded]

People should have different human rights values? Seriously?

Fuck it. I'm done with this shit.

Well, people definitely do, but that's not what I was talking about. It should've been pretty clear that I was referring to one's value of the food from Chik-Fil-A versus one's value of gas, and I was stating it's not fair to only rank the value of something based off of your own experiences, while ignoring the multitude of possible other values that will definitely vary from person to person.

 

[Trent Strong]

I'm arguing that anyone that rationalizes their "pennies" to feel good about it is corrupt. I don't feel in any way bad about that. If you donate to someone that is actively trying to deny human rights, you are funding them and thereby supporting an evil.


If that is something you can do, it's terrible. If you do that, you are directly against me in life. This isn't a difficult equation. Though many here seem to want to be as shady as possible.

A lot of people on GAF have not only purchased Ender's Game, but they even recommend it to people in book threads. Are all these people "directly against you in life"? Do these people "want to be as shady as possible"?

 

[Yaboosh]

People should have different human rights values? Seriously?

Fuck it. I'm done with this shit.

Now you are just being intentionally obtuse. Or just too emotional for proper reading comprehension. I disagree with what that guy said, but he certainly didn't say what you seem to think he said.

 

[ivysaur12]

A lot of people on GAF have not only purchased Ender's Game, but they even recommend it to people in book threads. Are all these people "directly against you in life"? Do these people "want to be as shady as possible"?

We had this discussion when Shadow Complex came out. I'd argue yes. It's the same veil of ignorance.

 

[Monocle]

I'm arguing that anyone that rationalizes their "pennies" to feel good about it is corrupt. I don't feel in any way bad about that. If you donate to someone that is actively trying to deny human rights, you are funding them and thereby supporting an evil.


If that is something you can do, it's terrible. If you do that, you are directly against me in life. This isn't a difficult equation. Though many here seem to want to be as shady as possible.

I don't hate you krypt0nian, I just give my money to people who despise everything you are and who use their vast wealth to try and regulate your private life. God this sandwich is tasty.

 

[Dead Man]

In that case you're just judging the value of something based off of your own experiences. You can't really decide the value of something for someone else, and it's pretty silly to pretend that everyone else holds the same value for everything that you do, and it's relatively selfish to not consider that in the first place.

What the fuck did I just read? You really don't understand the difference between boycotting petroleum and boycotting CFA?

A better analogy would be boycotting a particular oil company, otherwise you need to compare it to boycotting chicken because of CFA.

It's not that complicated.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Well, it's more like they'll keep eating there if the extra value that a CFA sandwich has over the alternatives is more important than gay rights.

It's like if a CFA sandwich is a 9/10 and BK or whatever the 2nd best option is a 7.5/10, that extra 1.5 points is more important than giving an large group in our population equal rights.

lol

 

[Hero]

So who's ready to boycott their laptops in protest of child-labor and factory worker suicide in China?

Having read Stumps post I have to say I disagree. Companies like Apple can either choose to work with companies like Foxconn or they can choose to work with companies in countries where human labor laws aren't archaic like say in the US or Canada.

However companies like Apple choose to willingly (and knowingly) work with these 3rd world companies simply because of their higher profit margins due to cheap labor. Worst still is the ultimate reason why they work with these companies. Their own personal shares in their company will be smaller if they work with fair trade unions, and thus they will be less wealthy. Not poor mind you, but just less wealthy.

And here's the real problem. We all know it. No one is hiding these facts, sweatshops and globalization of outsourcing is forefront everyday. And no one cares. Why? Because their iPhones would cost $50 more and Apple shares would go down bout 30%. Who wants that? We don't see the Chinese children who work 18 hour days with deformed hands from carpal tunnel. We don't see Foxconn putting up anti-suicide jumping nets to deter their employees from committing suicide because it's a better option than working for Foxconn.

My point stands. If you're going to get upset about boycotting Chick-Fil-A you really need to go whole hog and boycott everything else.




Still no.

Pretty much how I feel. I think it's dumb for CFA to actively announce their stance and I won't blame anyone who wants to boycott them but like you say if you're going to boycott company X for an immoral life stance then do it company Y as well. I'm not going to stop eating at CFA myself but I haven't even been there in months anyway.

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

So has anyone in this thread
ANYONE AT ALL
Been convinced to stop eating chick-fil-a/accept those that do/change their viewpoint?

 

[Valnen]

So has anyone in this thread
ANYONE AT ALL
Been convinced to stop eating chick-fil-a/accept those that do/change their viewpoint?

People aren't going to change their habits if the only arguments for doing so are essentially just name calling matches.

I'll continue to support human rights (including LGBT) in my own way. That way won't be boycotting this restaurant. Though I feel kind of weird when I say I'm not boycotting it when I haven't ate there in over a year and don't plan on it anytime soon...

 

[Dead Man]

So has anyone in this thread
ANYONE AT ALL
Been convinced to stop eating chick-fil-a/accept those that do/change their viewpoint?

Say if someone heard about this through this thread, and are now changing their buying habits would that count for you if you need to keep score? Or should we only discuss those things where people will change their decision during the thread?

 

[Monocle]

People aren't going to change their habits if the only arguments for doing so are essentially just name calling matches.

Fortunately this thread contains arguments a great deal better than that.

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

Say if someone heard about this through this thread, and are now changing their buying habits would that count for you if you need to keep score? Or should we only discuss those things where people will change their decision during the thread?

"So has anyone in this thread etc..."
It was a straightforward question.

 

[teruterubozu]

Moral shopping - the new American pastime.

 

[Trent Strong]

So has anyone in this thread
ANYONE AT ALL
Been convinced to stop eating chick-fil-a/accept those that do/change their viewpoint?

I'll probably boycott chick-fil-a after reading this thread. It's been pretty enlightening, Kryptonian's psychotic aggression nothwithstanding.

 

[MisterAnderson]

Well at least they're honest about it. But I won't be eating their food. (not that I ate there to begin with, anyway)