Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Chick - Fil-A BoycottFollow

#52 Aug 02 2012 at 2:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
What's shocking is that you make that connection with skin color and gender, but call it a "slippery slope" when the same exact argument is used on other things like polygamy, minors and bestiality.

Dude, you should have SEEN the **** when I tried to marry five kittens.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53 Aug 02 2012 at 3:16 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Codyy wrote:
So these organizations that are "Pro Traditional Marriage" don't really care if gays get married, they just want to make sure the Men and Women are still getting married, right? Because they aren't anti-gay, they are just pro-traditional. It's not like they don't want the gays to get married, they don't really care, but they're more comfortable when men and women are getting married, so as long as that's still happening, I mean, case closed, am I right?


I don't know what these organizations think, that's why I asked. In any case, "pro traditional marriage" supporters who aren't "anti-gay", would care about ensuring that marriage is between a man and a woman and not care about what homosexuals do in society. Organizations who are "anti-gay" would care more about homosexuals in society.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#54 Aug 02 2012 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Codyy wrote:
Belkira wrote:
niobia wrote:
more folks are eating at them today than protesting. The people I know who intentionally went today, went to support free speech - they thought the entire situation was dumb. (Ask a Christian whose business closes EVERY Sunday, what he thinks about **** marriage? And then try to impugn on his free speech , in an effort to promote equality seems idiotic.)


How is refusing to give any money to a company who's owner will use that money to support the effort to stifle civil rights impugning on this guy's free speech...?
It's not. If you're a business owner and you decide to voice your opinion, whether through donations or even when asked, you're opening yourself up to the criticism of your customers.


Sure. And it looks as though his customers have spoken loud and clear. The claims of infringement of free speech were related to public statements by elected officials that they would use their power to block Chick-Fil-A's business in their towns. That *is* infringement of free speech. And that's where the outrage came from. If you don't want people complaining about infringement of free speech, don't threaten to use government power to punish someone who speaks. Pretty simple, right?

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Aug 02 2012 at 5:01 PM Rating: Good
According to their store locator the closest are a few in Minneapolis, MN...so I'm sure Nixnot is boycotting them for me. Finally living in North Dakota has an advantage...we have KFC's everywhere though and I gladly give them my money instead.
____________________________
Things I sometimes play...

"What do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a unicorn!"
"Awww, why's that?"........
"So I can stab people with my face."
#56 Aug 02 2012 at 6:05 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
Codyy wrote:
Belkira wrote:
niobia wrote:
more folks are eating at them today than protesting. The people I know who intentionally went today, went to support free speech - they thought the entire situation was dumb. (Ask a Christian whose business closes EVERY Sunday, what he thinks about **** marriage? And then try to impugn on his free speech , in an effort to promote equality seems idiotic.)


How is refusing to give any money to a company who's owner will use that money to support the effort to stifle civil rights impugning on this guy's free speech...?
It's not. If you're a business owner and you decide to voice your opinion, whether through donations or even when asked, you're opening yourself up to the criticism of your customers.


Sure. And it looks as though his customers have spoken loud and clear. The claims of infringement of free speech were related to public statements by elected officials that they would use their power to block Chick-Fil-A's business in their towns. That *is* infringement of free speech. And that's where the outrage came from. If you don't want people complaining about infringement of free speech, don't threaten to use government power to punish someone who speaks. Pretty simple, right?


That might be the only sensible thing I've ever seen you post.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#57 Aug 02 2012 at 6:27 PM Rating: Good
******
26,516 posts
Dyadem, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
According to their store locator the closest are a few in Minneapolis, MN...so I'm sure Nixnot is boycotting them for me. Finally living in North Dakota has an advantage...we have KFC's everywhere though and I gladly give them my money instead.
I've been boycotting them most of my life, but the nearest one is outside of biking distance, so it's really not all that noble.
____________________________
WILL SHOWER AND POST PICS FOR GURU
#58 Aug 02 2012 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,638 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sure. And it looks as though his customers have spoken loud and clear. The claims of infringement of free speech were related to public statements by elected officials that they would use their power to block Chick-Fil-A's business in their towns. That *is* infringement of free speech. And that's where the outrage came from. If you don't want people complaining about infringement of free speech, don't threaten to use government power to punish someone who speaks. Pretty simple, right?



I'll buy that.

I didn't realize this was all that the "protest for free speech by eating chikin" thing was about. I thought it was about all of the people who are boycotting the place.
#59 Aug 02 2012 at 8:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
I remember being surprised when CFA moved out of the malls. That's where they started around here, in malls. And you could pretty much only get chicken tenders and a drink. They might have had sandwiches and fries, not sure. I just remember it was a very limited menu. I only ate there once or twice, thought it was ok, but was never overly impressed. There are better chicken joints. Popeye's and Church's come to mind. KFC is meh.
#60 Aug 02 2012 at 9:47 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,225 posts
Yeah, we have Zaxby's as a better local option. Food tastes better, and since the franchise is based out of our town (funny thing, about a dozen restaurant franchises are based around here) we get a small bit of locavore cred, too.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#61 Aug 03 2012 at 12:25 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
What's shocking is that you make that connection with skin color and gender, but call it a "slippery slope" when the same exact argument is used on other things like polygamy, minors and bestiality.

Dude, you should have SEEN the sh*tstorm when I tried to marry five kittens.


Were these MALE kittens? I mean, that's a deal breaker.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#62 Aug 03 2012 at 6:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,934 posts
gbaji wrote:
Codyy wrote:
Belkira wrote:
niobia wrote:
more folks are eating at them today than protesting. The people I know who intentionally went today, went to support free speech - they thought the entire situation was dumb. (Ask a Christian whose business closes EVERY Sunday, what he thinks about **** marriage? And then try to impugn on his free speech , in an effort to promote equality seems idiotic.)


How is refusing to give any money to a company who's owner will use that money to support the effort to stifle civil rights impugning on this guy's free speech...?
It's not. If you're a business owner and you decide to voice your opinion, whether through donations or even when asked, you're opening yourself up to the criticism of your customers.


Sure. And it looks as though his customers have spoken loud and clear. The claims of infringement of free speech were related to public statements by elected officials that they would use their power to block Chick-Fil-A's business in their towns. That *is* infringement of free speech. And that's where the outrage came from.


Weird, apparently you missed the sh*tstorm of protests from conservatives when the Muppets said they'd no longer work with Chick-fil-A that came days before Boston/Philly/Chicago officials made their announcements.

Then again, you don't get your news from anywhere, so I guess that makes sense Smiley: nod


To be fair, I do agree with your first point: those officials, if they actually try to enact a ban or a barrier, are going over the line. That's most definitely NOT where the outrage came from, however; it just fanned the flames.

Edit: Eh, not worth it. This is OOT, not the Asylum.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 8:23am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#63 Aug 03 2012 at 6:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,934 posts
catwho wrote:
Yeah, we have Zaxby's as a better local option. Food tastes better, and since the franchise is based out of our town (funny thing, about a dozen restaurant franchises are based around here) we get a small bit of locavore cred, too.

TBH, I would take Chick-fil-A (or KFC) over Zaxby's any day. I've only gone one time, and found the food terrible.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#64 Aug 03 2012 at 8:02 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,002 posts
So much hate.

The **** community and its supporters boycott the restaurant chain because the CEO is of a different opinion than them. The CEO is "boycotting" the gays because they're of a different opinion than him. And 'round we go!

I don't agree with his decision to donate money to the "war on homosexuals," but it's his money and his choice. If you don't like it, don't support it. I'm fairly certain I would not enjoy having a **** up my butt, so I'm not going to try it.

To boycott his company because of his opinion just seems a little extreme to me. According to my English dictionary (yes, here we go again), a boycott is to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion. Basically, people are intimidating/coercing the CEO into changing his personal opinion. I don't know what the US constitution is like, but that's a classic breach of our constitutional right to be... well, free people.

The CEO doesn't like gays. So what? The kebab guy down on the corner dislikes me because I look nothing like him. I still go there. Why? Because he makes excellent kebabs. Who gives a **** if he doesn't like me? He doesn't have to like me, and I don't have to like him. He takes my money and gives me tasty food. Everything else is outside my care sphere.

Like I said, I disagree with the CEO's decision to donate money to anti-gay causes, just as I would disagree with my kebab maker's decision to donate money to anti-Danish causes. Would I boycott his kebabs if I found out that he did? No. It's his decision and while I disagree with it, I don't want to coerce him into changing it.

I know, right?
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#65 Aug 03 2012 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Mazra wrote:
To boycott his company because of his opinion just seems a little extreme to me. According to my English dictionary (yes, here we go again), a boycott is to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion. Basically, people are intimidating/coercing the CEO into changing his personal opinion. I don't know what the US constitution is like, but that's a classic breach of our constitutional right to be... well, free people.

From a personal standpoint or a government one? I think most of us agree that a government blocking the business because of this is wrong and it was an overstep for the mayors in Boston & Chicago to threaten it.

From a personal standpoint, as a "free person" I can spend my money on whatever I want and if I want to withhold it from someone because he's a turdwad, that's certainly my choice. Especially if I know that my money will trickle in some fashion to causes I disagree with. I think perhaps the definition of boycott you're using is a bit more narrow than the casual usage of the word. Most people would call refusing to frequent a business due to whatever reason a "boycott" even if it has no chance of affecting actual change and they just don't want to shop there.

Some people separate those things and some don't. Some people think an actor's personal life or an author's beliefs are sufficient cause to not enjoy their works, others say they divorce the two completely and it doesn't affect them. Whichever, really -- you pick your battles and decide what you can justify to yourself and I don't think there's any right way or more noble or moral way to do it.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 9:19am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Aug 03 2012 at 9:08 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Mazra wrote:
To boycott his company because of his opinion just seems a little extreme to me. According to my English dictionary (yes, here we go again), a boycott is to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion. Basically, people are intimidating/coercing the CEO into changing his personal opinion. I don't know what the US constitution is like, but that's a classic breach of our constitutional right to be... well, free people.

From a personal standpoint or a government one? I think most of us agree that a government blocking the business because of this is wrong and it was an overstep for the mayors in Boston & Chicago to threaten it.

From a personal standpoint, as a "free person" I can spend my money on whatever I want and if I want to withhold it from someone because he's a turdwad, that's certainly my choice. Especially if I know that my money will trickle in some fashion to causes I disagree with. I think perhaps the definition of boycott you're using is a bit more narrow than the casual usage of the word. Most people would call refusing to frequent a business due to whatever reason a "boycott" even if it has no chance of affecting actual change and they just don't want to shop there.

Some people separate those things and some don't. Some people think an actor's personal life or an author's beliefs are sufficient cause to not enjoy their works, others say they divorce the two completely and it doesn't affect them. Whichever, really -- you pick your battles and decide what you can justify to yourself and I don't think there's any right way or more noble or moral way to do it.


This, really. It's a pretty easy distinction to make. The 1st ammendment protects our speech from government suppression. Personal conflicts (even those including loud, far-reaching voices such as celebrities) are not covered by the 1st ammendment umbrella. A boycott of the business by an organized group of people is fine. Enacting a political barrier to new business is not.


Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 10:08am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#67 Aug 03 2012 at 9:20 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
While I'm still touring Asia, I just arrived in Thailand today. My first night out and my God, I've never seen so many homosexuals before. I saw my first male drink club.. Always thought that as a joke. It's ok though, I'm wearing my "No **** shorts" tomorrow. I should be safe.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#68 Aug 03 2012 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,925 posts
Just staying the one night in Bangkok?

Can't be too careful with your company.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#69 Aug 03 2012 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,002 posts
Jophiel wrote:
From a personal standpoint or a government one? I think most of us agree that a government blocking the business because of this is wrong and it was an overstep for the mayors in Boston & Chicago to threaten it.
Jophiel wrote:
I think perhaps the definition of boycott you're using is a bit more narrow than the casual usage of the word.


This and this, I think. God, I've been working on this reply for 30 minutes now, trying to find a way to express my thoughts. Discussing terminology in a foreign language is hard. Smiley: frown

A boycott, where I'm from, has a goal. The goal is, usually, to change something. In this case, the boycott's goal would be to change the CEO's opinion on homosexuality. I think that's wrong, because he has a right to his opinion. That doesn't mean I agree with him, of course. I strongly disagree with anti-gay movements, but I acknowledge their right to be who they are, just as I acknowledge the **** people's right to be who they are.

In essence, I think he's stupid for being anti-gay, but I think people are stupid for boycotting him because of it. It's not going to change his view on anything, and it's only hurting a lot of innocent employees who might not share the CEO's opinion(s).

I think that's what I mean. I'm a little fuzzy. Haven't had my coffee today.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 6:43pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#70 Aug 03 2012 at 11:04 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Mazra wrote:
In this case, the boycott's goal would be to change the CEO's opinion on homosexuality.


I think here's where you're wrong. There are a bunch of possible motivations to boycott, but changing the CEO's opinion likely isn't one of them.

Most are probably doing it out of a generalized desire to push back against an opinion they disagree with. They'd like to harm Chick-Fil-A financially, thereby limiting the CEO's influence (but also as a way of 'punishing' him). It's also a means of showing the strength and prevalence of their opposing opinion. But mostly I think it's just an easy way of outwardly expressing their anger that could have a modicum of success.

A belief that one could "change his opinion" through an action like boycotting here would be very, very, naive.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#71 Aug 03 2012 at 11:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, I don't think there's a proper English word for "Not going there because I dislike some aspect of their business practice even though I know it won't change anything" so "boycott" gets used. I doubt anyone seriously thinks the CEO will look at the financials and have a sincere epiphany about equal rights for homosexuals. Or that someone will be ousted and replaced with a pro-SSM advocate. They just don't want to spend money at a business where the upper levels of management hold these views and contribute (however slightly) to funding causes they disagree with.

I've never liked the "What about the employees?" argument in these discussions. For one thing, someone's getting my lunchtime dollar and if it's not Jack at CFA, it'll be Jill at Chick'n Shack. Neither are any more deserving of it than the other. If the company wants me there, they're the ones who need to give me the incentive. For another, I don't necessarily feel that the workers are sufficient reason to sell out my convictions and fund something I find abhorrent enough to stop eating CFA over.

I'm speaking generally here since I don't have a CFA near me anyway.

In other words, I get what you're saying and find your reasoning legitimate, I just feel differently about the concept of "boycotting" businesses.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 12:19pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Aug 03 2012 at 12:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,638 posts
What I'm really getting from this thread is that Nio is pregnant.
#73 Aug 03 2012 at 12:58 PM Rating: Good
******
26,516 posts
Disregard that, I suck ****

Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 1:59pm by NixNot
____________________________
WILL SHOWER AND POST PICS FOR GURU
#74 Aug 03 2012 at 1:44 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,034 posts
[quote=NixNot]Disregard that, I suck **** us something we don't know. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#75 Aug 03 2012 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
I found this interesting, perhaps people don't really know.

It's not just about stopping **** marriage in the US. It's much deeper then that. If you support Chick-fil-A then you support state sanctioned murder based on sexual orientation.

Chick Fil A has donated money to the Family Research Council. Link

The Family Research Council spent 25K lobbying the US government not to denounce CIVH Res. 1064, a bill in the nation of Uganda which would instate the death penalty for homosexuality. Link.


I suppose the real question you need to ask yourself is: Are you okay with this company, however indirectly, supporting the state sanctioned murder of a group of people?


If you are, hey, enjoy your chicken.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#76 Aug 03 2012 at 3:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Tell us something we don't know. Smiley: tongue


Nilatai wrote:
The Family Research Council spent 25K lobbying the US government not to denounce CIVH Res. 1064, a bill in the nation of Uganda which would instate the death penalty for homosexuality. Link.


I suppose the real question you need to ask yourself is: Are you okay with this company, however indirectly, supporting the state sanctioned murder of a group of people?


If you are, hey, enjoy your chicken.


It's people. They're making our food out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!

Smiley: um

Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 2:19pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#77 Aug 03 2012 at 3:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,202 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
It's people. They're making our food out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them! Smiley: um


Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
It's a fast food chain that caters to religions that don't eat beef/pork by selling various chicken sandwiches that all taste the same. Shakes are great though.


Have you learned nothing!?! Smiley: glare
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#78 Aug 03 2012 at 3:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
You think that's chicken you're eating now? Smiley: sly
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#79 Aug 03 2012 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,048 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
You think that's chicken you're eating now? Smiley: sly


No, but it's some protein, guy.
#80 Aug 03 2012 at 4:15 PM Rating: Good
******
43,458 posts
I'm not your guy, buddy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#81 Aug 03 2012 at 4:18 PM Rating: Good
***
2,796 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
What's shocking is that you make that connection with skin color and gender, but call it a "slippery slope" when the same exact argument is used on other things like polygamy, minors and bestiality.

Dude, you should have SEEN the sh*tstorm when I tried to marry five kittens.


Only cause 3 of them were boy kittens. Had they been all girl kittens you would have had everybody's support.

Except Flea's.

Edit: Crap, beat to the punch. And by Alma of all people.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 5:23pm by Bigdaddyjug
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#82 Aug 03 2012 at 5:12 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,214 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, I don't think there's a proper English word for "Not going there because I dislike some aspect of their business practice even though I know it won't change anything" so "boycott" gets used.
I bet there's a German word for it.
____________________________
Banh
#83 Aug 03 2012 at 5:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,034 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
It's people. They're making our food out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them! Smiley: um


Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
It's a fast food chain that caters to religions that don't eat beef/pork by selling various chicken sandwiches that all taste the same. Shakes are great though.


Have you learned nothing!?! Smiley: glare
Human flesh supposedly tastes like pork anyway.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#84 Aug 03 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, I don't think there's a proper English word for "Not going there because I dislike some aspect of their business practice even though I know it won't change anything" so "boycott" gets used.
I bet there's a German word for it.


Schadenfrugal.



God, I am way too proud of myself for that.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#85 Aug 03 2012 at 6:30 PM Rating: Decent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,002 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
There are a bunch of possible motivations to boycott, but changing the CEO's opinion likely isn't one of them ... A belief that one could "change his opinion" through an action like boycotting here would be very, very, naive.


Of course you can't change someone's opinion through a boycott. Blanket intolerance and public confrontation never educates anyone, it just makes people stick to their guns harder than ever. Doesn't prevent people from thinking it might work, though. I mean, have you met the world? It's a pretty stupid bunch.

Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, I don't think there's a proper English word for "Not going there because I dislike some aspect of their business practice even though I know it won't change anything" so "boycott" gets used.


Boycott can be used about a lot of things then, can't it? Or is it only a boycott when preaching is involved? Say, if one million players unsubscribed from World of Warcraft (just an example), stating, collectively, that they did it because no new content had been released in ten months. That wouldn't be a boycott, would it? But if those one million players told others to unsubscribe then it'd be a boycott, right?

I don't get what the purpose of a boycott is, though, if it's not to change something. Are people boycotting CFA hoping the CEO will step down or something? People want to put him out on the street for being revealed as anti-gay? Sounds a bit like lynching to me. I mean, he sounds like a **** but really? And if the purpose is to just vent then what's the point? People will eventually go back to eating at CFA and the CEO will still be anti-gay (with some free PR in the bag).

Edited, Aug 4th 2012 2:34am by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#86 Aug 03 2012 at 8:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
Mazra wrote:
Boycott can be used about a lot of things then, can't it? Or is it only a boycott when preaching is involved? Say, if one million players unsubscribed from World of Warcraft (just an example), stating, collectively, that they did it because no new content had been released in ten months. That wouldn't be a boycott, would it? But if those one million players told others to unsubscribe then it'd be a boycott, right?

I don't know that people are actually *told* to boycott something and then they follow along like sheep. It's more like, someone some where suggests it, people agree, they suggest it, more people hear and agree, it picks up steam, etc. And I would consider millions of people unsubbing from WoW a boycott. Even if no one suggested it.

Also, IMO, a boycott can occur with just one person. It won't be effective for the most part, but it might make that one person feel better, haha.
#87 Aug 03 2012 at 8:33 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Just staying the one night in Bangkok?

Can't be too careful with your company.


No. I'm doing 2 nights and 3 days. I originally flew into Singapore, but that place is too expensive.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#88 Aug 03 2012 at 9:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Mazra wrote:
I don't get what the purpose of a boycott is, though, if it's not to change something.

Even if you're not changing something, that doesn't mean you wish to be a part of it. You're not going to make CFA's management any less anti-SSM but that doesn't mean you need to give them your dollars either so they can spend them on causes you disagree with.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#89 Aug 03 2012 at 10:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
6,119 posts
I had two idiots at my job arguing about this all day yesterday, one would say "Buying food from them means you support his homophobia" the other would counter with "by boycotting you are saying freedom of speech is a bad thing". I had to point out to the morons that both of their opinions are "freedom of speech". All this "boycott" is really doing is making Chick-fil-a a ton of money. Half the people locally that went to the boycotts were like "Hey we are queer, love us how we are!!... can I get this without the lettuce".
____________________________
This sig better be appropriate...
#90 Aug 04 2012 at 12:44 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
I actually didn't expect such a strong fight back to the boycott. If anything, this shows that there is a notable population in the US who favors marriage between a man and a woman. Go figure...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#91 Aug 04 2012 at 1:12 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,638 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I actually didn't expect such a strong fight back to the boycott. If anything, this shows that there is a notable population in the US who favors marriage between a man and a woman. Go figure...


Smiley: laughSmiley: lolSmiley: laugh
#92 Aug 04 2012 at 2:58 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I actually didn't expect such a strong fight back to the boycott. If anything, this shows that there is a notable population in the US who favors marriage between a man and a woman. Go figure...


Smiley: laughSmiley: lolSmiley: laugh


Smiley: nod


Edited, Aug 4th 2012 11:14am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#93 Aug 04 2012 at 3:46 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I actually didn't expect such a strong fight back to the boycott. If anything, this shows that there is a notable population in the US who favors marriage between a man and a woman. Go figure...


Smiley: laughSmiley: lolSmiley: laugh


Smiley: nod

She's laughing AT you, not WITH you, sh*t for brains.

Edited, Aug 4th 2012 4:46am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#94 Aug 04 2012 at 4:24 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
****
4,315 posts
There was a ton of cars backed up for miles at a turnoff that leads to a chik fil a a few days ago, I guess that is what the deal was. I never have eaten there to begin with as I always found them to be overpriced and not that great.

From what I know of the situation sounds like whomever reported the story knew they would get **** stirred up asking the question.
____________________________
Hi
#95 Aug 04 2012 at 4:39 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I actually didn't expect such a strong fight back to the boycott. If anything, this shows that there is a notable population in the US who favors marriage between a man and a woman. Go figure...


Smiley: laughSmiley: lolSmiley: laugh


Smiley: nod

She's laughing AT you, not WITH you, sh*t for brains.

Edited, Aug 4th 2012 4:46am by BrownDuck


Smiley: lol Do you think before you type Mr. S**t For Brains?

Edited, Aug 4th 2012 12:40pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#96 Aug 04 2012 at 8:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
If anything, this shows that there is a notable population in the US who favors marriage between a man and a woman. Go figure...

Sure. Somewhere around 45% of the US population is against SSM which is indeed "notable" even if not a majority.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 Aug 04 2012 at 8:57 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If anything, this shows that there is a notable population in the US who favors marriage between a man and a woman. Go figure...

Sure. Somewhere around 45% of the US population is against SSM which is indeed "notable" even if not a majority.


Let's not go into the "Less than 1/2 of 1% of any population accurately demonstrates the other 99.6% of the population" argument.

Actions speak louder than words, but hey, feel free to live in your fantasy world.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#98 Aug 04 2012 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If anything, this shows that there is a notable population in the US who favors marriage between a man and a woman. Go figure...

Sure. Somewhere around 45% of the US population is against SSM which is indeed "notable" even if not a majority.

Yay for Constitutional Republics!
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#99 Aug 04 2012 at 10:15 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Let's not go into the "Less than 1/2 of 1% of any population accurately demonstrates the other 99.6% of the population" argument.

Actions speak louder than words, but hey, feel free to live in your fantasy world.

You realize that less than 1/2 of 1% of the US population went to Chick-Fil-A, right?

I mean, I'm totally on board that the people who DID go don't represent the rest of the population so I guess we agree there. Was that what you were trying to show?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Aug 04 2012 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,002 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I don't know that people are actually *told* to boycott something and then they follow along like sheep. It's more like, someone some where suggests it, people agree, they suggest it, more people hear and agree, it picks up steam, etc. And I would consider millions of people unsubbing from WoW a boycott. Even if no one suggested it.

Also, IMO, a boycott can occur with just one person. It won't be effective for the most part, but it might make that one person feel better, haha.
Jophiel wrote:
Even if you're not changing something, that doesn't mean you wish to be a part of it. You're not going to make CFA's management any less anti-SSM but that doesn't mean you need to give them your dollars either so they can spend them on causes you disagree with.


So a boycott can simply be a way to say "do not like" and nothing more? That's very interesting. It's nothing like what I've ever experienced here, though, which might explain why I'm having a hard time understanding it.

I looked up boycott (boykot) in my Danish dictionary (oh yeah) and it says:
Quote:
bevidst undgå at samarbejde eller deltage i en politisk eller forretningsmæssig aktivitet med et land, en virksomhed el.lign. fx som pression, som protest eller pga. uenighed


Translated: purposely avoid cooperation or participation in a political or commercial activity with a country, a business or the like, e.g. as pressure, a protest or due to a disagreement.

I guess that's what you've been saying, it just never occurred to me that a boycott would have no purpose other than to bring awareness to a situation. A boycott here is almost always done with the purpose of reverting or preventing a change. One of our unions is currently boycotting a restaurant because the owner withdrew from that union and joined another. The boycott's goal is to change his mind about it (it will probably end with the government stepping in and deciding, likely in the owner's favor since he's protected by free will). Likewise, Iran, or some other country over there, boycotted our export of chicken or whatever it was, because of the Mohammed picture thing. Their goal was for us to apologize, or prosecute the artist, or something (who cares?).

It might also be that the entire situation is pretty far from what you'd experience here. Homosexuality is generally very accepted in our country and I don't think there are any serious organizations working against that (it would be a bad place to start such a business). As such, this entire thing is pretty distant from anything I've ever experienced.

When I hear the word boycott, though, I can't help but translate it to Danish, and the Danish word implies a purpose (protest, pressure and disagreement implies coming to a common understanding here). In a case like with CFA, you obviously can't change the CEO's mind, so the purpose of the boycott would be for him to apologize publicly. I guess. Like I said, I don't think I've ever experienced anything like it.

We love our gays. Smiley: thumbsup (Realizing this could be misunderstood, I'm not saying you don't, just that we do.)

In before Aeth links to bi-curious Denmark from SATW.

Edited, Aug 4th 2012 7:05pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#101 Aug 04 2012 at 11:38 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,034 posts
Mazra wrote:
In before Aeth links to bi-curious Denmark from SATW.
How about Denmark marrying Sweden and Norway?
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 59 All times are in CDT
afzaldoger, angelaangie, KTurner, Poldaran, Anonymous Guests (55)