Support NeoGAF

[Trent Strong]

Every fucking page, I swear.

Can we just copy and paste our responses to this argument from the last fifty pages?

Fuck knows why I'm posting this, since I'll probably be labeled a homophobe or something, even though I'm not at all, and I support gay marriage 100% and I'm an anti-theist and so would be opposed to chickfila's ludicrous practice of running their business according to "biblical principals" even if I didn't care about gay marriage (which I do) and since I pretty much agree with you guys and the responses you've made to these kind of arguments, and since I'll never eat at chickfila again, but the fact that many different people, at many different times, on nearly every page keep, making this same argument about boycotting one business's unethical practices, but not boycotting all the other businesses who also have unethical practices, again and again should show that there is something to this argument. And that something is hypocrisy. I couldn't put my finger on what was bothering me about this thread, but now I finally have, it's the hypocrisy. This response:

Once again I have to wonder the validity in arguing business related manufacturing ethics and trying to find fried chicken elsewhere. The comparison is a faulty one. You can get fried chicken from non-bigoted restaurants, what's your other option with electronics?

is not a good response. You can buy New Balance made in America shoes from Amazon just as easily as you can by Nikes. Switching to New Balance is just as easy as switching to KFC. So are you going to switch to New Balance? No, of course you won't. Other boycotts are more difficult, but they are still probably worth boycotting. So everyone in this thread has wet their beak in unethical shit, and no one in this thread deserves to take a holier than thou attitude. The "well, other boycotts are just too hard!" response is just not that good of a response, I don't think. I think there is a correct response to this argument that keeps getting brought up and it is this:

This thread is specifically about this particular issue. You have no idea what we choose to purchase, boycott, volunteer, etc. Why bring it up? We all choose our battles, and it is a bit rude to say "this cause is lame, why aren't you doing this instead". Want to talk about boycotting electronics companies, or shoes? You are free to make a thread, and I am sure some of will join you.

I agree with this. This is the correct respose.

 

[Devolution]

Fis not a good response. You can buy New Balance made in America shoes from Amazon just as easily as you can by Nikes. Switching to New Balance is just as easy as switching to KFC. So are you going to switch to New Balance? No, of course you won't. Other boycotts are more difficult, but they are still probably worth boycotting. So everyone in this thread has wet their beak in unethical shit, and no one in this thread deserves to take a holier than thou attitude. The "well, other boycotts are just too hard!" response is just not that good of a response, I don't think. I think there is a correct response to this argument that keeps getting brought up and it is this:

I agree with this. This is the correct respose.

Eh either one is fine to me. There are solid options on the apparel front, not so for electronics.

 

[Esch]

A lot of chain places and family run places get their ingredients from the same place: Gordon Food Service.

This is true, but even then like i said id rather give my cash to locals.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Yes, here is a recipe for the Chick-Fil-Gay . . . a nice copycat recipe from an online chef:
http://veracitystew.com/2012/07/21/make-your-own-chick-fil-gay-sandwich-at-home-video/

I'm so making this next week.

 

[Acerac]

is not a good response. You can buy New Balance made in America shoes from Amazon just as easily as you can by Nikes. Switching to New Balance is just as easy as switching to KFC. So are you going to switch to New Balance? No, of course you won't. Other boycotts are more difficult, but they are still probably worth boycotting. So everyone in this thread has wet their beak in unethical shit, and no one in this thread deserves to take a holier than thou attitude. The "well, other boycotts are just too hard!" response is just not that good of a response, I don't think. I think there is a correct response to this argument that keeps getting brought up and it is this:

*Looks at my shoes*

Are you sure I won't?

Spoiler

In all fairness it was because they make a great wide shoe... though now that I know that they're the morally superior option it'll be a given!

 

[faceless007]

Fuck knows why I'm posting this, since I'll probably be labeled a homophobe or something, even though I'm not at all, and I support gay marriage 100% and I'm an anti-theist and so would be opposed to chickfila's ludicrous practice of running their business according to "biblical principals" even if I didn't care about gay marriage (which I do) and since I pretty much agree with you guys and the responses you've made to these kind of arguments, and since I'll never eat at chickfila again, but the fact that many different people, at many different times, on nearly every page keep, making this same argument about boycotting one business's unethical practices, but not boycotting all the other businesses who also have unethical practices, again and again should show that there is something to this argument. And that something is hypocrisy. I couldn't put my finger on what was bothering me about this thread, but now I finally have, it's the hypocrisy. This response:

When someone tells you they've donated to a charity, do you tell them they're a hypocrite if they haven't also donated to every other charity in the world?

 

[GoldenEye 007]

The previous arguments have been to cut out smartphone use altogether - which I agree can be unreasonably... limiting. This one is to limit them to critical(work/family) use only. I take it that's unreasonable too and therefore there are no considerations that have to be made for the creation of such devices.

But of course it is ok to label patrons of CFA as bigots/anti-gay/etc. for eating a sandwich?

 

[TylerD]

State representative/crackpot from Oklahoma weighing in...

OKLAHOMA CITY -
Republican State Rep. Sally Kern spent time Friday issuing a statement asking all Oklahomans to eat at Chick-Fil-A.

"We need to support a business [that] is willing to take a stand for those values that Oklahomans believe and support," Kern said.

According to Kern, Oklahoma values do not support same-sex marriage. At the same time, political leaders from Chicago to Boston are saying the exact opposite. They say Chick-Fil-A is being discriminatory.

"Instead of calling for an appreciation day of a fast food company that supports intolerance and serves up deep fried fatty foods, [Kern] may want to consider a celebration of the gay people in Oklahoma and the contributions that they make every single day," Scott Hamilton, executive director of the Cimarron Alliance Foundation said.

The Cimarron Alliance is an Oklahoma City-based organization that advocates for the LGBT community. Hamilton says Chik-Fil-A has every right to say what it wants. At the same time, Hamilton says, people who support equality have every right to not eat at Chick-Fil-A.

"Over half of all Americans today believe in marriage equality for all people," Hamilton said. "It's time for us to move past the Sally Kerns of the world because the world is moving past Sally Kern."

Kern says those who do not follow her values are helping the country move away from its morality. Kern warns that straying from such values will produce "drastic consequences."

"We are in a culture war, and people need to start getting involved," Kern said.

Kern says the reason she is taking on the issue is because Oklahoma is a conservative state.

Chick-Fil-A has 16 locations in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area. News 9's calls to Chick-Fil-A on Friday were not returned.

She is a "special" one...

In an interview on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, she conflated homosexuality with HIV/AIDS, and reiterated her claim that homosexuality is a greater threat to the United States than terrorism, saying "It’s more dangerous, and yes I think that it’s also more dangerous because it will tear down the moral fiber of this nation."[

 

[lunch]

Fuck knows why I'm posting this, since I'll probably be labeled a homophobe or something, even though I'm not at all, and I support gay marriage 100% and I'm an anti-theist and so would be opposed to chickfila's ludicrous practice of running their business according to "biblical principals" even if I didn't care about gay marriage (which I do) and since I pretty much agree with you guys and the responses you've made to these kind of arguments, and since I'll never eat at chickfila again, but the fact that many different people, at many different times, on nearly every page keep, making this same argument about boycotting one business's unethical practices, but not boycotting all the other businesses who also have unethical practices, again and again should show that there is something to this argument. And that something is hypocrisy. I couldn't put my finger on what was bothering me about this thread, but now I finally have, it's the hypocrisy.

I think you made a fair point, and I think that the argument PatMcAtee and others made has merit, it's just that it's now been brought up on every page, and since the same people (Devolution, Cyan, Dookkake) are responding, there really isn't much new that's going to be added to the argument.

The previous arguments have been to cut out smartphone use altogether - which I agree can be unreasonably... limiting. This one is to limit them to critical(work/family) use only. I take it that's unreasonable too and therefore there are no considerations that have to be made for the creation of such devices.

But of course it is ok to label patrons of CFA as bigots/anti-gay/etc. for eating a sandwich?

I wouldn't label all Chick-Fil-A patrons as bigots, and have at no point done so. The only people worthy of the label are the people who are eating there solely to support Chick-Fil-A's stance.

 

[Captain Sparrow]

 

[Vicetrailia]

Conservatism has it's place, but fuck it in this case. Cancerous.

 

[Gaborn]

Conservatism has it's place, but fuck it in this case. Cancerous.

This isn't really conservatism, it's religiosity:

On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

 

[lunch]

I don't really see what images like that contribute to the conversation, unless you're purposely trying to rile people up. I'm not aware of what Oreo has done, unless I'm misreading the intelligent argument laid out in the picture.

 

[Wilsongt]

Holy false equivalency, Batman!

 

[Link]

Is this a serious post? It's so over-the-top stupid that I'm not sure.

 

[Byakuya769]

Holy false equivalency, Batman!

Yea. Incredibly stupid, but par for the course for the "every issue has two equally valid sides" crowd.

Anyway, am I confused, or did Chick-fil-a say that they would no longer donate money to politically involved groups after this fallout?

 

[Captain Sparrow]

Is this a serious post? It's so over-the-top stupid that I'm not sure.

It's definitely a bit over the top. However, it's somewhat true. Apparently, Kraft had the right to have their own view, when Chick Fil A had their view, "A BUSINESS CANNOT TAKE SIDES!!!"

 

[Dead Man]

I don't really see what images like that contribute to the conversation, unless you're purposely trying to rile people up. I'm not aware of what Oreo has done, unless I'm misreading the intelligent argument laid out in the picture.

You must not be familiar with Captain Sparrow.

The previous arguments have been to cut out smartphone use altogether - which I agree can be unreasonably... limiting. This one is to limit them to critical(work/family) use only. I take it that's unreasonable too and therefore there are no considerations that have to be made for the creation of such devices.

But of course it is ok to label patrons of CFA as bigots/anti-gay/etc. for eating a sandwich?

How does that send any message to the phone manufacturers? You still buy one. If you have it, you may as well use it.

 

[Wallach]

Fuck knows why I'm posting this, since I'll probably be labeled a homophobe or something, even though I'm not at all, and I support gay marriage 100% and I'm an anti-theist and so would be opposed to chickfila's ludicrous practice of running their business according to "biblical principals" even if I didn't care about gay marriage (which I do) and since I pretty much agree with you guys and the responses you've made to these kind of arguments, and since I'll never eat at chickfila again, but the fact that many different people, at many different times, on nearly every page keep, making this same argument about boycotting one business's unethical practices, but not boycotting all the other businesses who also have unethical practices, again and again should show that there is something to this argument. And that something is hypocrisy. I couldn't put my finger on what was bothering me about this thread, but now I finally have, it's the hypocrisy. This response:

I've already had this discussion in this thread, so I'm just going to fast-forward to the point where the logic falls apart:

If this is hypocrisy, where along this metric do we satisfy the condition that removes us from being a hypocrite?

It's definitely a bit over the top. However, it's somewhat true. Apparently, Kraft had the right to have their own view, when Chick Fil A had their view, "A BUSINESS CANNOT TAKE SIDES!!!"

No, when Chick-Fil-A had their view, "your contributions to that organization are being used to try and suppress the right of people in our community which is pretty disgusting". Let me know if Kraft donates to an organization that attempts to actively stifle the rights of some of our citizens.

 

[lunch]

You must not be familiar with Captain Sparrow.

I've read his posts in this thread and I guess I just don't understand what reaction his posts are supposed to incite.

Why can't we all just get along?

 

[Devolution]

Is this a serious post? It's so over-the-top stupid that I'm not sure.

No, it's just Sparrow posting how he usually does.

A-M-A-Z-I-N-G. We have a controversial discussion like gay marriage. Where those for it seeminly only want "equal rights." Yet some of those very same people are demanding a constitutional right be taken away from CFA.

Like I said earlier in this thread, Bigotry goes both ways.

I'm sooooo tired of seing the world "Bigot" EVERYWHERE when this topic comes up. It bugs me when you see everyone always rehashing the same words and statements that they read elsewhere. Opinions mean more when they are with your own words.

The real "bigots" are those who think their opinion is law when it comes to being pro gay marriage. Your opinion is just as "right" as anyone elses. Homophobe is another word that is used extremely too often. You don't have to be a homophobe to not want gay marriage.

 

[Gaborn]

It's definitely a bit over the top. However, it's somewhat true. Apparently, Kraft had the right to have their own view, when Chick Fil A had their view, "A BUSINESS CANNOT TAKE SIDES!!!"

Of course a business can have their own view. They just have to accept the backlash when they do. Thus Kraft got backlash from religious groups and CFA is getting backlash from liberals and libertarians. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand, it's not like the religious right IGNORED the Oreo ad, and yet they're acting like people are picking on CFA.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

I dont understand that picture

 

[lunch]

I dont understand that picture

Neither do I. What did Kraft do?

 

[Daydream Sequence]

A lot of chain places and family run places get their ingredients from the same place: Gordon Food Service.

And many local places buy their veggies and meat locally. I'll take local over chain any day of the week.

 

[killertofu]

What the fuck? I'm down with the boycott of Chick-Fil-A, but to hell with this. If it's not a place I can't eat at or shop at where ever I go then I'm not spending a dime there. You eat at Shenanigans because you fucking know that a Shenanigans in Sheboygan is going to taste the same as a Shenanigans in Spurbury. Just like you shop at TJ Max or Walmart because if you're travelling and have to return something, you're almost guaranteed to have a TJ Max or Walmart right down the road. I do not understand this "local, family run" preference at all.

MRE...didn't you go to UF/Gainesville? Gville has such great local joints...what the hell, man.

 

[Devolution]

I dont understand that picture

Same shit he's been peddling all thread, those who are pro gay rights/marriage are "just as bigoted" as those who oppose it.

 

[Link]

It's definitely a bit over the top. However, it's somewhat true. Apparently, Kraft had the right to have their own view, when Chick Fil A had their view, "A BUSINESS CANNOT TAKE SIDES!!!"

There's a difference between supporting human rights and donating money to groups that actively try to prevent a group of people from having the same rights as others. I don't see Kraft trying to prevent straight people from getting married with their message.

 

[Trent Strong]

Eh either one is fine to me. There are solid options on the apparel front, not so for electronics.

Yeah, it's probably impossible to get electronics that aren't in some way dirty.

When someone tells you they've donated to a charity, do you tell them they're a hypocrite if they haven't also donated to every other charity in the world?

No, but I think the analogy is that people in this thread are ordering everyone to donate to this specific charity, while at the same time telling them that the other charities are too difficult to donate to, so just forget them. (But, as has been brought up before, and fairly, it's very easy to stop eating a chickfila, so why not just do it?)

I think you made a fair point, and I think that the argument PatMcAtee and others made has merit, it's just that it's now been brought up on every page, and since the same people (Devolution, Cyan, Dookkake) are responding, there really isn't much new that's going to be added to the argument.

Yeah, you're right. It's just the same arguments over and over again.

 

[Acerac]

I dont understand that picture

Same, would somebody mind elaborating?

Same shit he's been peddling all thread, those who are pro gay rights/marriage are "just as bigoted" as those who oppose it.

I knew the intent, I was just unclear on how the image was supposed to represent that.

 

[Mr. F]

Of course a business can have their own view. They just have to accept the backlash when they do. Thus Kraft got backlash from religious groups and CFA is getting backlash from liberals and libertarians. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand, it's not like the religious right IGNORED the Oreo ad, and yet they're acting like people are picking on CFA.

Not to mention Kraft was showing their support period, not donating proceeds to discriminatory organizations on the side.

 

[Devolution]

Same, would somebody mind elaborating?
I knew the intent, I was just unclear on how the image was supposed to represent that.

That it's a double standard to support Oreos/Kraft support of gays and decry what Chick Fil-A is doing.

 

[lunch]

Same, would somebody mind elaborating?
I knew the intent, I was just unclear on how the image was supposed to represent that.

I dont understand that picture

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...e-flak-20120627_1_oreos-pride-month-gay-pride

I guess the Oreo in the picture is an actual Oreo. I thought it was just a clever picture.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

Kraft put up a pic of a rainbow Oreo in support of gay pride

I meant I dont understand it because people were mad over the oreo picture like people are mad over CFA

 

[Wallach]

That it's a double standard to support Oreos/Kraft support of gays and decry what Chick Fil-A is doing.

You can't hate haters. Then you're a hater. That makes you the same because I used the same word.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

You must not be familiar with Captain Sparrow.



How does that send any message to the phone manufacturers? You still buy one. If you have it, you may as well use it.

Buy lower-tier models? Buy used? But if it is the idea you support, not using it for non-critical uses isn't an unreasonable position, no? It shows an individual moral commitment to the cause. Write letters? When you reject those Words With Friends and Instagram invites, tell others why you've done so to spread the word and make the issue more known?

 

[Eric C]

*waits patiently for chick-fil-gAy sauce alike*

[B]Honey Roasted BBQ Sauce Recipe[/B]

Serves: 1 cup
Start-to-Finish: 25 minutes
Recipe By: Todd Wilbur

Ingredients:

1/2 cup vegetable oil
1/4 cup honey
1 TBSP Grey Poupon Dijon mustard (you can substitute any Dijon mustard but to get the closest to Chick-fil-A sauce it apparently needs to be the Grey Poupon kind, I used one with horseradish sauce in it because I liked the zippiness and it is what I had in my fridge. Let's face it, if I have to go out to buy new mustard I might as well stop by Chick-fil-A and get some packets of sauce instead.)
1 tsp ketchup
1 tsp sugar
1/4 tsp paprika
1/4 tsp salt
1/8 tsp black pepper
1/8 tsp garlic powder
1/8 tsp onion powder
2 1/2 TBSP white vinegar
1/2 tsp concentrated hickory liquid smoke flavoring (I substituted with 1 tsp of plain ole BBQ sauce because, seriously, who has liquid smoke flavoring just laying around?)
1/4 tsp lemon juice
1 egg yolk
1 tsp water
1 TBSP cornstarch 

Directions:

1. Combine oil, honey, mustard, ketchup, sugar, paprika, salt, pepper, garlic powder, and onion powder in a small saucepan over low heat until boiling.
2. Stir until it becomes jelly-like and well incorporate.
3. Remove the pan from the heat and let it cool, uncovered, for 10 minutes.
4. While the sauce is cooling, whisk egg yolk with water in a small bowl for about 2 minutes or until color is pale yellow.
5. Then, whisk in cornstarch until dissolved.
6. Once sauce has cooled, add vinegar, smoke flavoring (or BBQ sauce), and lemon juice.
7. Drizzle in the egg yolk mixture in a steady stream while rapidly whisking. (This will create a thick, creamy emulsion that will prevent the oil from separating.)
8. Cover and refrigerate until serving.




[B]Alternate Honey Roasted BBQ Sauce Recipe[/B]

Hey... I just figured out a MUCH easier way to make it. I didn't take exact measurements but the ingredients are:

    Marzetti brand Honey Dijon Dressing (The brand is very important for this, and I found it in the produce section by the bagged salads)
    Ketchup
    Liquid Hickory Smoke Flavoring



The ratio is ABOUT 10:2:1, or maybe less ketchup and smoke flavor, but just add a little of each till it tastes right, as that is what I did instead of measuring. It tastes and looks exactly the same and there's no raw egg in it. Keep it refrigerated because of the dressing though.

[B]Polynesian sauce recipe[/B]

1/2 cup Pineapple juice
1/4 cup Honey
3 tbsp. worcestershire sauce
1 1/2 tsp. Ground ginger
1 tsp. Salt
1/2 tsp. garlic Powder


How to Prepare Sweet and sour polynesian sauce
1. Combine all ingredients and use to brush over ribs, chicken or pork during the last 15 minutes of cooking (makes one cup sauce).



[B]Alternate Polynesian sauce[/B]
The owner/manager of a local Chick-Fil-A told me the polynesian sauce [U]is actually Marzetti Honey French dressing.[/U]  Hope this helps!


Compare:

Polynesian Sauce
Nutritional information 

Ingredients: High fructose corn syrup, soybean oil, corn-cider vinegar, distilled vinegar (grain source varies), tomato paste, salt, paprika, modified food starch (from corn), spices, honey, beet juice concentrate, natural flavors, xanthan gum, onion*, garlic*, propylene glycol alginate.
*dehydrated

Marzetti Honey French Dressing

High Fructose Corn Syrup, Soybean Oil, Corn-Cider Vinegar, Tomato Paste, Distilled Vinegar, Salt, Paprika, Spices (Including Mustard Seed), Honey, Beet Juice Concentrate, Onion*, Natural Flavors, Xanthan Gum, Propylene Glycol Alginate, Garlic*. *Dehydrated.

[B]Chick-fil-A Sauce[/B]

Serves: 1 cup
Start-to-Finish: 5 minutes
Recipe By: [url]www.food.com[/url]

Ingredients:

1 cup Ken's honey mustard dressing (no brand substitutions or lite versions here, it makes a difference)
2 tsp smoky barbecue sauce

Directions:

1. Combine ingredients.
2. Cover and refrigerate until serving.

Some Google searching found these. ^

Never been to Chic-Fil-A so I can't tell you if those are close enough matches or not.

 

[Devolution]

Oh he gone. Praise Jesus.

 

[Gaborn]

There's a difference between supporting human rights and donating money to groups that actively try to prevent a group of people from having the same rights as others. I don't see Kraft trying to prevent straight people from getting married with their message.

making it about content is giving that comparison too much credit. At a most basic level this is some religious person whining about what they see as liberals being MEAN to CFA but tolerating Oreo. The obvious rebuttal is that the religious were just as MEAN to Kraft. It's hypocritical of them to be whining now and companies taking ANY stance expect backlash from SOMEONE.

 

[Zaphod]

It's definitely a bit over the top. However, it's somewhat true. Apparently, Kraft had the right to have their own view, when Chick Fil A had their view, "A BUSINESS CANNOT TAKE SIDES!!!"

Most people here are not saying a business cannot take sides. Chick fil a can say whatever they want and it is my right not to eat there if I don't like what they say. You can get mad at an imaginary hypocrisy that only exists in image form if you want but it's really just a low rent way of putting words in someone else's mouth.

 

[FyreWulff]

Conservatives/fundies usually tend to think that their free speech overwrites anyone else's free speech, but your free speech can't do anything to theirs.

Especially with their constant massively funded war against their fellow countrymen (Prop 8 etc), yet when one of their figureheads gets slightly called on it's shit, now they're the victims and they're claiming free speech and free choice when they vote in and support shit that takes away both.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the party that thinks Coca Cola is a person thinks CFA applying for a building location would count as free speech. A corporation is not a fucking person and does not have free speech rights. It's a fucking piece of paper in some clerk's filing cabinet in Delware. Chicago and Boston can continue to work on blocking CFA from building in their cities.

 

[Acerac]

That it's a double standard to support Oreos/Kraft support of gays and decry what Chick Fil-A is doing.

Even with it explained I don't even understand how any reasonable person could hold that opinion unless they legitimately felt that gays did not deserve rights. That is the only way it is logically consistent.

 

[Devolution]

Even with it explained I don't even understand how any reasonable person could hold that opinion unless they legitimately felt that gays did not deserve rights. That is the only way it is logically consistent.

Well yeah that's how Sparrow feels. He's even said so in the past.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35696418&postcount=1417

 

[Alligatorjandro]

Even with it explained I don't even understand how any reasonable person could hold that opinion unless they legitimately felt that gays did not deserve rights. That is the only way it is logically consistent.

The people who support CFA probably disliked the oreo picture.

 

[Link]

Well yeah that's how Sparrow feels. He's even said so in the past.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35696418&postcount=1417

Wow...

Ok then, so that was definitely a serious post. Glad that was clarified.

 

[Acerac]

Well yeah that's how Sparrow feels. He's even said so in the past.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35696418&postcount=1417

Duly noted. Well, it's not like I'll be discussing the matter with him any more.

The people who support CFA probably disliked the oreo picture.

It's not even like the Oreo picture is funding gays. It's just saying "hey we support your right to exist!" The fact that people find that objectionable speaks volumes.

 

[Trent Strong]

I've already had this discussion in this thread, so I'm just going to fast-forward to the point where the logic falls apart:

If this is hypocrisy, where along this metric do we satisfy the condition that removes us from being a hypocrite?



No, when Chick-Fil-A had their view, "your contributions to that organization are being used to try and suppress the right of people in our community which is pretty disgusting". Let me know if Kraft donates to an organization that attempts to actively stifle the rights of some of our citizens.

I don't know. I just think that some people in this thread are saying that eating at chickfila is exactly as bad as being a homophobe or being opposed to gay marriage. Or that there is no gray area whatsoever in just eating at chickfila, but in all other ways supporting gay marriage. If this kind of thinking were true, then people who bought shoes made by child labor would be exactly as bad as people who are directly and personally forcing these kids to make their shoes. (But, as has been pointed out repeatedly, it's very easy to stop eating at chickfila, so you might as well just stop. And I agree with this.)

 

[Recon]

I just made the Chick Fil Gay recipe posted in here.....man... I can enjoy Chick Fil A without ever stepping foot in one again. Seriously, this is fucking almost exactly the same.

 

[Dr.Palutena]

Well yeah that's how Sparrow feels. He's even said so in the past.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35696418&postcount=1417

Hahaha holy shit.

 

[Dead Man]

But lower-tier models? Buy used? But if it is the idea you support, not using it for non-critical uses isn't an unreasonable position, no? It shows an individual moral commitment to the cause. Write letters? When you reject those Words With Friends and Instagram invites, tell others why you've done so to spread the word and make the issue more known?

You can do those things without limiting your usage of the item. If I have to give my money to a shitty company, you better believe I will be getting maximum value for it.