• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Do y'all still eat at Chic-Fil-A?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Duane Cunningham said:
Yeah, Jimmie is just one of those rich dicks who poses on the carcass in Africa.

Papa threw a big fit when Obama got re-elected in 2012, because he thought he'd have to provide his employees with health care, and threatened to raise the price of his pizza by 14 cents a pie.

Oh hey, on a totally unrelated note, look how cool his house is!

bilde


QwDhN.jpg
Click to expand...

That's not a house, that's a fucking Mario 64 stage
 
I initially planned to avoid Chick Fil A, but then I realized how many other companies I supported that had questionable policies. My laptop, phone, television and game consoles are all made with super cheap Chinese labor. My bottled water is taken and resold in an environmentally irresponsible way. There's probably a million other things.

I eat their chicken now, no need to avoid it when other companies are doing even more atrocious thjngs
 
E92 M3 said:
Ok? You tried to make the classic argument of "he has enough money." Well, a business should always strive to earn as much as the market would allow. Doesn't matter how much money the owner has. Just basic economics.
Click to expand...

The word you are looking for is greed, not economics. There are many principles of economics that are not revenue maximizing.
 
cwmartin said:
They can be judged by their own lion community. I'll continue to do the same for members of my own.

Frankly I don't even know if Jimmy kills lions so I'm not sure what we are even talking about.
Click to expand...
Judge? It's a lion lol.

Justice is a human made concept. It doesn't exist in nature. These things only care about passing their genes.

Burrito is just highlighting specism--OK with killing animals but not others.

It's actually consistent.
 
I never really ate much at Chic-Fil-A in the first place, to be fair. I always found their food medicore and overpriced.

Beyond that, no, that politics nonsense wouldn't have affected me anyway.
 
The first time I walked into a Jimmy Johns and read the propaganda on the wallpaper I knew the founder was an asshole. Doesn't stop me from eating there or CFA. A good product is a good product
 
cwmartin said:
The word you are looking for is greed, not economics. There are many principles of economics that are not revenue maximizing.
Click to expand...

And I am not talking about the many principles of economics - just the basic level. I can never fault a business for trying to make money if people continue to spend. No such thing as a greedy business; just consumers willing to pay. People always hate on Apple by calling it overpriced, yet they sellout like crazy with new launches.
 
I don't actively or willfully avoid them. It's just that every time the I get the urge to eat there it always happens to be Sunday.
 
E92 M3 said:
Ok? You tried to make the classic argument of "he has enough money." Well, a business should always strive to earn as much as the market would allow. Doesn't matter how much money the owner has. Just basic economics.
Click to expand...

Him having too much money is only one ingredient. For me it's

too much money + outspoken dickhead + mediocre pizza

that adds up to me wanting to sit it out. I mean, if I'm somewhere and PJ's gets catered in or something I'll eat it, I'm not like, picketing or anything. But there are TONS of places to get pizza. If it's me making the decision, I'll just go somewhere else. In fact, I usually just get it from the neighborhood pizza place near my house, who serves fantastic food, and whose owners also live around the corner. They cost twice as much, but there's a pretty good chance the extra dollars I spend with them will wind up back in my pocket, or at least in a pothole I'm driving over or something. A better chance, at least, than if I spend it with that prick Papa John.
 
I go once every couple of weeks. Chicken sandwich, waffle fries, vanilla shake combination is a simple pleasure of mine. Employees have always been super friendly too. This and In and Out are pretty much the only fast food I do nowadays.
 
Duane Cunningham said:
Him having too much money is only one ingredient. For me it's

too much money + outspoken dickhead + mediocre pizza

that adds up to me wanting to sit it out. I mean, if I'm somewhere and PJ's gets catered in or something I'll eat it, I'm not like, picketing or anything. But there are TONS of places to get pizza. If it's me making the decision, I'll just go somewhere else. In fact, I usually just get it from the neighborhood pizza place near my house, who serves fantastic food, and whose owners also live around the corner. They cost twice as much, but there's a pretty good chance the extra dollars I spend with them will wind up back in my pocket, or at least in a pothole I'm driving over or something. A better chance, at least, than if I spend it with that prick Papa John.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I don't like franchise pizza either. Don't care what Papa does with his business. Just making it a point, that someone can't be faulted for having a nice house or too much money. It's none of our business what he does with his money.
 
AlfonzoPalutena said:
I initially planned to avoid Chick Fil A, but then I realized how many other companies I supported that had questionable policies. My laptop, phone, television and game consoles are all made with super cheap Chinese labor. My bottled water is taken and resold in an environmentally irresponsible way. There's probably a million other things.

I eat their chicken now, no need to avoid it when other companies are doing even more atrocious thjngs
Click to expand...

But what if next time you went to buy a phone they had 2 nearly identical models, ethical labor and slave labor edition? Does it not matter to you just because you're still buying stuff from those other companies who are doing atrocious things? I don't believe you wouldn't care or try to buy the one you think is ethical.

It's weird to me that the excuses begin with fastfood fried chicken, something that should be incredibly easy to practice will on. If it was a toilet paper company that was getting frisky with equal rights, you'd never see people borderline bragging about using that product. I know people who were eating there and reveling in the controversy. It's like tasting the forbidden fruit, which is ironic.
 
BronsonLee said:
Isn't that what should happen, though? Executives should be allowed to donate elsewhere, but they shouldn't try to use the company foundation for it. They may not share the same interests.
Click to expand...

? It's just another channel you are giving them money to spend forwarding their same agenda that got them in hot water
 
Isn't continuing a boycott after a company does an about-face on the policy in question counter-productive to boycotting in general? I mean the whole idea is that you hit them in the wallet until they change their policy, and then when they do change the policy you stop hitting them. Punishment and incentive. If you continue to hit them after they change though, other companies will assume capitulation is pointless and they'll be harder to change through boycotts. You're keeping the punishment but taking away the incentive.

I guess you could argue about whether they've done enough, but that argument can be dragged out ad nauseum.
 
DOWN said:
? It's just another channel you are giving them money to spend forwarding their same agenda that got them in hot water
Click to expand...

The key difference is that they're doing it as individuals, not as part of the company. Everyone can make private donations all they like.
 
I live in Utah. Chik-Fil-A is most likely immensely profitable here with their conservative values, and it most likely became more immensely profitable after the revelation that they really hate gay people.

I do not think that the $8 (is that right? I haven't been there in a long time) a meal costs could in any way affect any real change in this region. You could say, "but if everyone like you thought like that nothing would get done", but since I live in Utah, I know that nobody around here thinks like that and I know that nothing will get done. I do not represent a demographic capable of enacting any form meaningful change and any form of social progress will have to come from places outside of this state. $8 is, in this circumstance, literally just $8.

So, if I felt like I just absolute needed a chicken sandwich that dries too quickly and flavorless waffle fries, I probably could buy a lunch and not feel like I did something with any negative consequences. Though, for largely the same reasons, I don't blame people if they don't bother turning up to vote for the democratic candidates in presidential elections either, and that's something a lot of people would likely not agree with.
 
BronsonLee said:
The key difference is that they're doing it as individuals, not as part of the company. Everyone can make private donations all they like.
Click to expand...

No one has contradicted that. The thread is referencing where they put the millions they get paid from Chick-fil-A, which includes anti-gay rights advocacy groups around the world. It was always them voluntarily putting millions towards these groups that were considered controversial, not the fact that they donate money to causes at all in the first place like anyone can.
 
DOWN said:
No one has contradicted that. The thread is referencing where they put the millions they get paid from Chick-fil-A, which includes anti-gay rights advocacy groups around the world. It was always them voluntarily putting millions towards these groups that were considered controversial, not the fact that they donate money to causes at all in the first place like anyone can.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the headlines were Chic-Fil-A donates to anti-gay groups, not executives of the company.

It matters. If you looked into what some executives of other companies donated to, you'd flip your lid. They're not representing the company anymore, which is how it should be.

This is a stupid argument, by the way. It's semantics at best.
 
No. They opened one in Bellevue, WA, but the food is too salty. We stopped eating there and then moved to an area with no Chik-Fil-As anyway, so I had not had it for about five years and now I cannot go back. I make a good breaded chicken sandwich and fries without all the salt.
 
Don't eat it often because I'm not huge on fast food but damn I'll go to town on a number 4 with chic-fil-a sauce.

Oh and I love all the passive aggressive "I don't eat that garbage" comments. Congrats to you.
 
All the time because my money goes to evil old people no matter what I do
 
I refused to eat at Chic-Fil-A for about a year. I did finally give it to Chic-Fil-A, and get some of those yummy chicken minis. I know subjective, and people love putting down other people's food choices, but I find them one of the better tasting fast food places. That said I will never eat a burger fast food style (not even 5 Guys, because if I'm going to eat a burger I'm going to get it from a local place like Stock N Barrel), and I might only eat fast food like 6 times a year (most of that is Chic-Fil-A or Taco Hell).
 
BronsonLee said:
Yeah, the headlines were Chic-Fil-A donates to anti-gay groups, not executives of the company.

It matters. If you looked into what some executives of other companies donated to, you'd flip your lid. They're not representing the company anymore, which is how it should be.

This is a stupid argument, by the way. It's semantics at best.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is semantics. You're saying the money from Chick-Fil-A that gets donated now is okay because it says "Privately donated", even though it's going to the same exact place and pushing the exact same causes the exact same board was choosing to fund before.
 
NeoGAF, where people haughtily refuse to eat Chic-Fil-A while they wait in line for the newest iteration of the iPhone.
 
DOWN said:
Yeah, it is semantics. You're saying the money from Chick-Fil-A that gets donated now is okay because it says "Privately donated", even though it's going to the same exact place and pushing the exact same causes the exact same board was choosing to fund before.
Click to expand...

Because if we try to stop an individual from privately donating, that is a massive fucking problem.

Also, they aren't exactly doing it with the blessing of the company whatsoever anymore. They're doing it on their own. There is a big difference. One that you're downplaying for reasons I'm not really catching.

Either way, this is a waste of time. You're focused on a point and you're not moving past it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Why do they still allow that film format? Letterboxing
2
58
1K
VulcanRaven replied
ET The Extra Terrestrial is still a masterpiece
20
352
GateofD replied
Do you still run a virus scan on your PC?
16
543
ReBurn replied
Erika Christensen is still fine
26
791
Yoshi97 replied
The 16" M1 Max is still a monster. Don't forget about it when buying a Mac/laptop.
Opinion 
30
1K
AeonGaidenRaiden replied
Top Bottom