User Tag List

First 4567816 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 331

  1. #51
    Rainy Day Woman MDP2525's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,535

    Default

    I don't think I would boycott any business based on the owner's personal beliefs. I'm sure I frequent many places in which my ideology differs from theirs. Chick-fil-A made a mistake in advertising their beliefs (although they have a right to do it - however bigoted. Just as much as people have a right to boycott them). My politics are separate from my lunch. I don't really care.

    As a business owner I think it would be incredibly stupid to entertain the possibility of alienating any customer base you have. Time will tell if it affects them long term. I don't think it will.
    ~luck favors the ready~


    Shameless Self-Promotion:MDP2525's Den and the Start of Motorcycle Maintenance

  2. #52
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post

    Why did people respond so poorly to his comments? Because it's one thing to say, "I personally don't believe that same-sex marriage is moral, I'm sorry but I just can't, so I need to disagree, and we need to let it go at that," and saying, "Anyone who believe in same-sex unions is immoral and arrogant and a rebel against God and a disgrace to this country and the reason this country is failing."

    See the difference? The first point just focuses on the disagreement but doesn't slander the other side, the other one is an assault upon the moral integrity of the other side and rather hypocritical, since it takes some arrogance to simply slander the moral caliber of someone who disagrees with you.
    That's a fair point, and I agree.

    I think part of the disconnect on this issue is that popular culture/media is permeated with demonization towards one side of the issue (for an anecdotal example, see any Law & Order episode with evangelical Christians as guest characters), with the result that many people* tend to unconciously see the reaction in terms of double-standards rather than as a contextual response to what was specifically said.

    *Myself included, and I very specifically rejected Christianity, evangelical or otherwise, as a belief system in my late teens.

  3. #53
    Senior Member tinker683's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Well, they aren't really being douchebags by following a religion that disagrees with same sex marriage. Just like people aren't being douchebags just because they aren't Christian.
    I never suggested that all Christians were douchebags. There are many Christians who are quite alright with gay marriage.

    Nor am I stating that these morons have no right to express their opinions and beliefs, if they want to oppose gay marriage that's their prerogative. But I don't share their beliefs, and telling me that two people shouldn't get married because of their sexuality IS douchebaggery in my book and I fully support anyone who decides hearing this news doesn't wish to support or patron the business of Chik-Fil-A restaurants. I don't eat there anyway so its non-issue for me.

    As for the mayor doing what he did, yeah I'm not crazy about it either but he'll have to answer to his electorate for his response so I'll leave it to them to decide if he acted correctly or not.
    "The man who is swimming against the stream knows the strength of it."
    ― Woodrow Wilson

  4. #54
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    That's a fair point, and I agree.

    I think part of the disconnect on this issue is that popular culture/media is permeated with demonization towards one side of the issue (for an anecdotal example, see any Law & Order episode with evangelical Christians as guest characters), with the result that many people* tend to unconciously see the reaction in terms of double-standards rather than as a contextual response to what was specifically said.

    *Myself included, and I very specifically rejected Christianity, evangelical or otherwise, as a belief system in my late teens.
    Yeah, this is similar when people say things like "they should be ashamed of being white"...I'm like, really? Would you say "they should be ashamed of being black" in a polite public setting?

    To me it looks like Fe unverified by Te. Like accepting cultural morality without checking to see if it's externally logical or fair.

    My most recent concern has been extreme liberalism though I've always considered myself a liberal, I've started to notice why there are people who call it The Church of Liberalism.

    It's because of things like that.

    ON THE OTHER HAND, if Christians are abusive toward gays and invasive, they really have no right to behave as if they are victims for believing as they do, because at that point they are not just believers, but they are invaded the privacy and rights of other citizens, and then the response that these Christians are douchebags will come in response, because well, THEY STARTED IT.

    But it's important to make the distinction between Christians who simply believe gay marriage is immoral, and Christians who are actively abusive toward gays; just as it's important to make the distinction between the fact that all white people aren't the same any more than all black people aren't the same.

  5. #55
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default


  6. #56
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    I'm not such an ethical purist to never give money to people I don't like or support, but given the option I'd rather give my money to people who want to support the things I support. Money gives you some amount of power. I rather share my power with people like me who support what I do.

    Power is important because rather than any sort of rule or order in the universe that mediates what is legitimate or not it is the interplay between people who have power and people who don't. At least that's how I see it.

    I'll cheerfully be divisive and say that if you're against same-sex marriage I think you're against a practice which will let individuals openly and officially form pairings which will in all likelyhood contribute to social stability. I support this sort of social stability and think that preventing it essentially forces a portion of the populace into illegitimacy and very likely makes them less happy and productive for no good reason, which leaves all of society worse off. I'm not going to demonize you, or accuse you of 'crimes' you didn't commit, but I will do what I can to convince you otherwise, and if I cannot, or if that is impractical, I will act to remove you from power of influence wherever I can*. That's the same strategy I use pretty much everywhere.

    If you're against what I'm against, you'll probably fight against that. That's ok. We all struggle.

    This is not utopia.

    I'm not much of a fanatic. You're not going to find me cooking up crazy BS to rally popular. I find that all rather unsavory and ultimately unproductive. Chik-fil-a isn't Moammar Gadhafi. But since it's so easy for me to bring money elsewhere, I'll just not going to buy from Chik-Fil-A. I'd encourage other people not to either, but I'm not going to physically stop anyone. Maybe legally, if that's what is popular in a region.

    *Destroying your ability to make a living doesn't benefit society either. There's a balanced trade-off. The goal is to make sure my clans have more influence than yours while maintaining the privilege for everyone to believe what they want so no group really has full control.

    FWIW, this topic isn't as important to me as the above write-up might suggest, but it provides a framework for dealing with many issues. Remove the context cues and it's a fill-in-the-blank for future use. Efficient.

    Edit:
    I'd expand: sometimes limiting power of influence doesn't mean working directly against anyone, but encouraging others to make their own minds up by providing them with a way of understanding which may lead them to arrive at similar conclusions.
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

  7. #57
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    If this were all about what the Chik fil A guy said, I'd probably agree that boycotting et. al. are unjustified. But it's not. My decision not to patronize CFA has to do with their patterns of hiring/promotion discrimination (not just with gay employees, either- also working mothers) and monetary contributions to political organizations I find abhorrent.

  8. #58
    Senior Member EntangledLight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    184

    Default

    i can see how people don't like the fact that a company is contributing to anti-gay legislation... but is this any different than other parties that fund certain people/political parties to ensure certain legislation is passed? if there is a difference, what is it? are businesses not allowed to throw money where they'd like? (if "we're" going to take them down for this, why stop with them?)

  9. #59
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinker683 View Post
    I never suggested that all Christians were douchebags. There are many Christians who are quite alright with gay marriage.

    Nor am I stating that these morons have no right to express their opinions and beliefs, if they want to oppose gay marriage that's their prerogative. But I don't share their beliefs, and telling me that two people shouldn't get married because of their sexuality IS douchebaggery in my book and I fully support anyone who decides hearing this news doesn't wish to support or patron the business of Chik-Fil-A restaurants. I don't eat there anyway so its non-issue for me.

    As for the mayor doing what he did, yeah I'm not crazy about it either but he'll have to answer to his electorate for his response so I'll leave it to them to decide if he acted correctly or not.
    Well thanks for the ringing endorsement of mob mentality and majoritarianism, if its a numbers game which will decide what is and isnt valid in terms of perrenial norms and values then we'll each have to just deal with how passing vogues and fashions are going to screw things up repeatedly.

    You what douchebaggery is? Not being able to understand what marriage is and why it hasnt been a relationship between two members of the same sex and why no one so much as thought it could be until now, peoples sexuality has squat to do with this, if people want to have sex with someone of the same sex that's a seperate matter, if people want to pretend that they can redefine age old social institutions and norms and mores as they see fit then that's a problem.

    They arent going to be satisfied with the results and they arent likely to have considered that if their thinking is anything like that in your post.

    If I lived in the states I think I'd visit this restaurant twice for every time that someone whose discussion ability means they'll resort to insults so quickly gave it a miss.

  10. #60
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    Yeah, this is similar when people say things like "they should be ashamed of being white"...I'm like, really? Would you say "they should be ashamed of being black" in a polite public setting?

    To me it looks like Fe unverified by Te. Like accepting cultural morality without checking to see if it's externally logical or fair.

    My most recent concern has been extreme liberalism though I've always considered myself a liberal, I've started to notice why there are people who call it The Church of Liberalism.

    It's because of things like that.

    ON THE OTHER HAND, if Christians are abusive toward gays and invasive, they really have no right to behave as if they are victims for believing as they do, because at that point they are not just believers, but they are invaded the privacy and rights of other citizens, and then the response that these Christians are douchebags will come in response, because well, THEY STARTED IT.

    But it's important to make the distinction between Christians who simply believe gay marriage is immoral, and Christians who are actively abusive toward gays; just as it's important to make the distinction between the fact that all white people aren't the same any more than all black people aren't the same.
    What about taking religion out of the equation altogether?

    I'm a Roman Catholic, although my stance on the topic of abandoning the traditionally and sound social institution of marriage doesnt actually have anything to do with any religious tradition or scriptures, hell, if I'm honest I think that RCC strictures have inadvertantly made the church a homosexual institution in a lot of contexts, I still wonder about the amount of reported homosexual behaviour among the hierarchy in Rome and stories about soliciting homosexual prostitutes in the Italian press.

    My objections to the politicalisation of homosexuals, including the whole "marriage" thing, is based on a lot of insights from sociology, psychology and politics, I consider my religion a matter of private conscience and always have, I dont expect anyone to try and live the life I try to lead or obey the strictures I do who is not a member of my church or shares that consciously arrived at wish.

    Its gotten to such a pitch now that when I read any posts about it I just think, not this shit again, seriously has that topic not jumped the shark? And really and truly I wonder when that's going to happen, I know that things are different in the US were there's sharp polarisation and some people strongly define themselves by that polarisation, honestly they'd be lost without their opposing and opposite numbers who they'll publically say they wish would go live elsewhere or disappear or conform to their thinking.

    Maybe if a couple of these boycotts and similarly vicious and bullying behaviour of people who cant conscientiously assent to popular opinion really are successful the tables will turn, we'll see. I used to think that it was worth while trying to get people to consider what the hell is going on here and the likely outcome if they were successful, now I just think its reached a point were you try and prepare for the shitty aftermath and accept that stupid crowds will do their thing.

Similar Threads

  1. The Banned and The Damned
    By Haight in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 331
    Last Post: 11-30-2017, 07:12 PM
  2. Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-14-2009, 04:03 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-29-2008, 11:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO