Bigoted Organization "Chic-Fil-A" infiltrates facebook

[natty dread]

There's no such thing as "homosexual marriage" because we're all members of a single human race descended from a common ancestor, so why would NS or anyone oppose such a thing?

Indeed.

[benga]

LOL this is going too far, why would anyone be a bigot if they are against homo marriage.

[natty dread]

LOL this is going too far, why would anyone be a bigot if they are against blacks marrying white people.

[BigBallinStalin]

A question regarding those opposed to gay marriage or gay "lifestyles":


How is preventing "gays from marrying gays" less bigoted than preventing "blacks, yellows, reds, etc. from marrying white people" ?

[Timminz]

*puts on best BBS voice*

The difference between Chick-Fil-A and gasoline (among other things) is the availability of substitutes. It's pretty easy to find a different restaurant at which to eat, but not so easy to find alternative ways to power a vehicle. Therefore, it takes a greater perceived cost to an individual for them to stop buying gasoline than is required for them to stop eating at Chick-Fil-A.

[benga]

LOL this is going too far, why would anyone be a bigot if they are against blacks marrying white people.

And your point is?

All people have to approve everyone's marriage?

Why?

I knew it was stupid to post, it's what you think or don't think at all.

A question regarding those opposed to gay marriage or gay "lifestyles":


How is preventing "gays from marrying gays" less bigoted than preventing "blacks, yellows, reds, etc. from marrying white people" ?

I am not against it, but why do I have to approve it?

Why does anybody?

Do the ones pro marriage also approve goat and men marriages?

Or arranged marriages?

Or etc.

[GreecePwns]

You don't have to approve everyone's marriage, that's the point. It has nothing to do with you, and you are arrogant to think that you should be allowed to approve or deny a total stranger's lifestyle.

"But, GP, it's not moral according to XYZ book!" Yeah, well your morality is not the only moral view, let alone the fact that there is no correct moral view, so the state should take no positions/interference on moral choices.

[Juan_Bottom]

Any group that uses it's finances and influence to block the rights or freedoms of any minority without the justification of science or reason is a hate group.

This doesn't have to be a minority. According to your statement, since gay rights activists use their finances and influence to block the rights and freedoms without the justification of science or reason of parents who don't want their kids taught that being gay is perfectly normal is a hate group. Or how about the gay rights activists who are forcing churches to hire gays when it is against their religious freedoms? By your definition, the gay rights groups/activists are a hate group!!

I don't even understand what you just said.
Gay Activists spend their money to tell kids that being gay is normal, and you think that when they do this they fall under the definition of bigotry, because parents don't want their kids to accept homosexuals.... or something?

The only troll here is your brain which trolls the rest of your body with bigotry.

So, you concede it would be bigoted to oppose interracial marriage, and if I simply changed "homosexual" to "interracial" in your post, then you'd indeed be making a bigoted post. So tell me, how exactly are you not being bigoted by opposing homosexual marriage? Why is one form of bigotry "not bigotry" to you, but another form is?

It'll be interesting to hear the rationalizations you make for your bigotry.

Honestly - I read what you wrote as I was going through this thread to catch up with where I left off yesterday, and I just could not believe that NS walked right into this. Classic logic trap.



OPEC has a monopoly, but they don't have "owners" and not all oil comes from country's that kill homosexuals. Track Citgo.

Therefore, it takes a greater perceived cost to an individual for them to stop buying gasoline than is required for them to stop eating at Chick-Fil-A.

Yeah.

[IcePack]

So greater perceived costs are an acceptable excuse for supporting unethical actions / inactions?
As far as availability of substitutes, there are electric cars out on the road. No?
While I understand the difficulty is much greater in one area (boycott a food source rather than a mass method of transportation) but if one is about boycott of an opinion and the other is about actual harm / persecution (and death), one would assume even though the PERCEIVED cost may or may not be greater, the boycott / change of activity for the persecuted aspect would be as good / greater of a reason to support that cause More so then the opinion? To me, boycott of chick fil a = surface level / easy, boycott of gasoline really speaks volumes ad makes me want to listen to what you have to say.

That being said, I do know OPEC has a monopoly and not all members are from those sources but the majority are and as I indicated, there are alternatives to OPEC products.

IcePack

[Timminz]

So greater perceived costs are an acceptable excuse for supporting unethical actions / inactions?

That's an excellent question (almost), and the answer depends on a lot of different things. Have you ever studied ethics or economics, at all?

[IcePack]

So greater perceived costs are an acceptable excuse for supporting unethical actions / inactions?

That's an excellent question (almost), and the answer depends on a lot of different things. Have you ever studied ethics or economics, at all?

Yes, thanks for asking.

[Juan_Bottom]

That being said, I do know OPEC has a monopoly and not all members are from those sources but the majority are and as I indicated, there are alternatives to OPEC products.

The majority of OPEC nations don't arrest-to-kill homosexuals. The bulk of them do persecute gays though. Ecuador being a fine exception... But it's easy to forget that the US government banned Gays from serving in the military until OBAMA stepped in. So this country is not so far advanced.

And you can just buy CITGO fuel and avoid buying fuel from nations that kill gays.
I don't drive though.

[BigBallinStalin]

So greater perceived costs are an acceptable excuse for supporting unethical actions / inactions?
As far as availability of substitutes, there are electric cars out on the road. No?
While I understand the difficulty is much greater in one area (boycott a food source rather than a mass method of transportation) but if one is about boycott of an opinion and the other is about actual harm / persecution (and death), one would assume even though the PERCEIVED cost may or may not be greater, the boycott / change of activity for the persecuted aspect would be as good / greater of a reason to support that cause More so then the opinion? To me, boycott of chick fil a = surface level / easy, boycott of gasoline really speaks volumes ad makes me want to listen to what you have to say.

That being said, I do know OPEC has a monopoly and not all members are from those sources but the majority are and as I indicated, there are alternatives to OPEC products.

IcePack

Point One:
Let's take a computer. Its materials rely on the petroleum industry (plastic), and much petroleum is produced by government-owned companies (within OPEC, some of whom hate on and kill gays). So, should we stop buying computers?

It's not just about perceived costs and the range of substitutes, but also on the opportunity costs. Computers make people more productive and add value to their lives (recall the countless hours of debates here, viewing Kitten videos, learning from wherever, the cost-savings of computerized organization, etc.). Without computers, we incur the opportunity cost (i.e. we would forego the value of these benefits from computers).

For example, if it's morally impermissible to purchase gasoline for already stated reasons, then using motorized ambulances would be unacceptable. But the opportunity costs are high: motorized ambulances save more lives.

Should ambulances be electrically powered? If yes, then what about the production of electricity? That involves natural gas, petro-based products (many of which originate from OPEC), nuclear power, wind (which kills birds and disturbs crops by interfering with the wind), etc.

So, if we can't rely on the production of electricity, which incurs various negative consequences yet TREMENDOUS benefits, then what are the alternatives? Manual labor ambulances with decreased response time and more deaths? That would be a significantly worse alternative.


For me, on moral choices and ethics, it depends on the consequences, i.e. the costs and benefits--as experienced in the real world (to exempt myself from imagined philosophical problems).



Point Two:

What's the optimal extent of responsibility for one's actions? How far shall we reasonably stretch the cause-and-effect chain?

Saudi Arabia's monarchy, military/police, and bureaucrats are killing homosexuals (and others without good reason), but I'm not directly doing this, and (1) the chain of events between my purchasing gas at a local station and Saudi Arabian policies are much wider compared to my buying Chick-Fil-A* and their president/CEO funding anti-gay marriage groups.

Also, (2) my purchase of gasoline has a chance of supporting Saudi Arabia. This probability (which is unknown and probably can't be discovered by any practical means**) lends further support that I should be less responsible for the far-off consequences which may occur if I purchase gasoline.


*(I don't buy their products because they suck. I never knew about their CEO's stance beforehand.)

**(Perhaps, an awareness group could research this and publicize their findings.)


Point Three (to add to perceived costs):
When consumers are informed, they're marginally more responsible for their actions. Compare the unknown probability of gas purchasing aiding Saudi Arabia in killing people unjustly versus knowing that buying Chick-Fil-A will definitely aid in their CEO's efforts to fund anti-gay marriage groups, thus undermining gay marriage efforts.

Depending on one's normative stance, we can compare the moral consequences of either action, and for most people, clearly we can see a moral difference between the two actions.

[Juan_Bottom]

[IcePack]

Well spoken BBS. I agree there is a lot of far reaching and near impossible to avoid implications when it comes to oil. As I stated when I posted the photo, it gave me a chuckle about the concept in general (people boycotting one thing but not realizing other day to day purchase implications) which, not necessarily only revolves around OPEC oil. I posted it cuz a) it was funny and IMO, well done and b) it was there and topical, while my comments were more generic

Again - just the aspect that some join in on boycotts / band wagons but have put zero thought into other parts of day to day life. Glad at least you've put some thought into it, tho my intent wasn't specifically regarding oil

IcePack

[BigBallinStalin]

Well spoken BBS. I agree there is a lot of far reaching and near impossible to avoid implications when it comes to oil. As I stated when I posted the photo, it gave me a chuckle about the concept in general (people boycotting one thing but not realizing other day to day purchase implications) which, not necessarily only revolves around OPEC oil. I posted it cuz a) it was funny and IMO, well done and b) it was there and topical, while my comments were more generic

Again - just the aspect that some join in on boycotts / band wagons but have put zero thought into other parts of day to day life. Glad at least you've put some thought into it, tho my intent wasn't specifically regarding oil

IcePack

Hey, no worries. Thanks for posting, and letting us get our thoughts out. It was fun, and it's a clever photo!

[Phatscotty]

We have freedom of religion, period.

The End

[Juan_Bottom]

Yeah, but I think you want to say "We have freedom of Bigotry, period."

[Woodruff]

So greater perceived costs are an acceptable excuse for supporting unethical actions / inactions?

I suppose that depends entirely on your definition of "acceptable" (yes, I mean this as a serious answer).

[Woodruff]

We have freedom of religion, period.

I posit that this is not true. If this were true, why is religion so often interjected into our laws?

[Night Strike]

We have freedom of religion, period.

I posit that this is not true. If this were true, why is religion so often interjected into our laws?

Because there are many religious morals and teachings that are good for the nation as a whole.

[GBU56]

We have freedom of religion, period.

I posit that this is not true. If this were true, why is religion so often interjected into our laws?

Because there are many religious morals and teachings that are good for the nation as a whole.

Damn it! As long as it not any other religion than CHRISTIAN!

[GBU56]

We have freedom of religion, period.

The End

As long as that does not include MUSLIMS!

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/03/0 ... g-silence/

.....oh how ignorant we are

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbM

[Woodruff]

We have freedom of religion, period.

I posit that this is not true. If this were true, why is religion so often interjected into our laws?

Because there are many religious morals and teachings that are good for the nation as a whole.

Ok. That does not in any way counter my assertion that we do not have freedom of religion.

[Juan_Bottom]