Eat at HootersFollow

Because I don't agree with how the company is run and I don't want my money supporting it. Like I said in my first post. That first post in which I said, "Though after thinking about it and talking to my husband I probably wouldn't deprive my kid of his season-end party for those ideological reasons." (For the record, my husband actually said that my ideological reasons were pretty sound for not wanting to send my kid there, but that's neither here nor there.)

There you go with those pesky strawman arguments again, though.



When did I say they came up with it on their own? Here's where you took issue with the phrase:



I showed you where Hooters used that phrase to describe itself.

So yes, you were wrong.


Edited, Nov 14th 2013 8:29pm by Belkira

Edited, Nov 14th 2013 8:31pm by Belkira

Law, politics, science, math ... Kind of a Jack-of-all-Trades, Understander of None.

Did anyone write about the fact that after the Coach was fired Hooters said they'd throw the kids a party for free yet? Because that's kind of an awesome **** you to the school.

I doubt that'd have the desired effect, for several reasons:

1) No-one talks like that.
2) It sounds like you're talking about animals at a petting zoo, probably not the right tone to strike.
3) The suggestion that people usually dress up as some kind of favour to those around them. This isn't the case.
4) You can't have a serious discussion while using the word hooters. It's just not possible. 'even though in this case at hooters' is one of the funniest things to have ever been posted on this website, though, so congratulations on that one.

Are you new here?

I hope not. The welcoming package is seriously lacking in goodies.

They're not your own kids either though. Ironically, my understanding is that the parents of the kids didn't have a problem with it. The coach didn't get any complaints from the parents of the football team. Aren't they the one's who matter here? Who the hell are you, or I, or the nosy athletic director who decided to butt himself into this, to decide that the coach can't do this?

What happened here is a district administrator who abused his authority in order to impose his own opinion on others. He's the one who should be fired, not the coach who's greatest crime was standing up to the thought police. My understanding is that one person complained. This person was not a parent or any of the kids, but was a patron of the athletic program for the district. Based on that, the athletic director sent out an incredibly inflammatory letter to a large audience about this terrible thing going on. And of course, you send this out to enough people, you'll get a bunch who will be outraged.

And something that shouldn't have been a big deal at all got blown out of proportion.



Given that the overwhelming rationale given by those outraged about this is the same "objectification of women" line you've been spouting, I suspect you're pretty much 100% wrong about which "side" thinks this is a big deal and which doesn't. I honestly believe that many liberals have no clue what conservatives really care about, much less what their social/moral positions are or how they derive them.

I know that the stereotypes you've been taught say otherwise, but it's liberals who spend much more effort trying to tell others how to live their lives, not conservatives.

Or the religious liberals. So how about we just say "religious" and not associate it with a political orientation? Take that away, and we're left with just "liberals" in terms of political alignment acting as a thought police organization.

No, gbaji's right on this one. Conservatives don't give a **** about women.

It's hilarious that you are lecturing me about how liberals label people who disagree with them and want to let individuals "decide for themselves" in one paragraph and speak condescendingly to me regarding my opinion regarding a restaurant that objectifies women in the very next paragraph. You're such a hypocrite, it's hilarious. This entire thread, you have attacked my opinion, told me I'm wrong, and tried to dissuade me from holding my own opinion while I have not judged one person for enjoying this restaurant, and openly stated that I have no problem with people working at or patronizing this place.

You're a piece of work, gbaji.

Why is that hilarious? Given that your opinion is based on blind acceptance of ideologically driven hearsay rather than actual examination of facts, those two things seem perfectly congruous.



No. I've told you that you should base that opinion on observation rather than hearsay.




Except the coach, and well... anyone who enjoys the restaurant.



Except for all the times you've made it clear that you believe that Hooters is a terrible place because they objectify women and to patronize such a place is to endorse such objectification and that by taking kids to Hooters the coach is perpetuating a culture of male objectification of women. So aside from pretty much every post you've made in this thread, you're correct that you've clearly expressed no problem with people working at or patronizing Hooters.

You're kidding, right? You couldn't have kept a straight face while typing that.

No. We have religious people and liberals. If both religious liberals and religious conservative have problems with Hooters for sexual morality reasons, it's not their political affiliation but their religion that is the cause. So they hold that position because they are "religious". Period. The only political affiliation that has an issue with Hooters is "liberal" because of the whole overactive feminism thing. Conservatives have no issue with it at all case we're not uptight like that.



As is the religious left. Thus, it's the "religious" part, not conservative or liberal that defines that particular position. I exclude conservatives because being conservative doesn't have anything at all to do with whether one might oppose Hoooters. Being devoutly religious or liberal will though. Thus, it's more correct to identify those two groups as the ones that might have an issue with the restaurant (well aside from food critics, cause their food isn't exactly stellar or anything).



And a bank robber might also be left handed, but we don't blame left handed people for stealing our money, do we? Seriously? Being conservative isn't what makes one oppose Hooters because the women are scantily dressed and that's some kind of sin or something. Being puritanically religious is what makes one adopt that position. And that level of religious belief can (and does) exist on all side of the political spectrum and has nothing at all to do with politics.


I know that there's this ridiculous need on the left to make "conservative" and "religious" synonymous, and it's amazing the lengths some will go to in order to perpetuate that myth, but it's simply not true.

Edited, Nov 15th 2013 6:07pm by gbaji

Lol! Or maybe a miracle occurred and you realized just how ridiculously absurd your argument was and decided to stop making yourself look more foolish by continuing to repeat it?


I mean, it's not even a difficult thing to understand. One only needs to have a basic grasp of how adjectives work. If, for example, I said that the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog, only a complete idiot would argue that the speed of the fox is "brown" and the color is "quick". They would realize that each of those adjectives describes a different aspect of the fox. Strange that this is such an alien concept for you.