Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? And no more Jeebus...

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:51 pm

Clearly it is you who do not understand.

After being here for so long, that you have yet to realize, that I don't believe in much of anything. I believe in what I do, and what effect I have on the world around me. I will take responsabilty for my actions. I will not blame fast food if I gain weight. I will not blame tobacco if I get cancer. I will not blame the gov't if I lose my job. What happens to me, happened because of what I did.

...so you can spend your life in fear, being manipulated by those who want to control you. ...or you can enjoy a nice tastey Baconator, and go to sleep happy like me.

Frost Mage · Post by **Frost Mage** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:53 pm

Jeff wrote:Clearly it is you who do not understand.

After being here for so long, that you have yet to realize, that I don't believe in much of anything. I believe in what I do, and what effect I have on the world around me. I will take responsabilty for my actions. I will not blame fast food if I gain weight. I will not blame tobacco if I get cancer. I will not blame the gov't if I lose my job. What happens to me, happened because of what I did.

...so you can spend your life in fear, being manipulated by those who want to control you. ...or you can enjoy a nice tastey Baconator, and go to sleep happy like me.

I understand your first two answers, but in this political climate, losing your job is 9/10 due to lay-offs, and not because you did your job half-assed.

Deandra · Post by **Deandra** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:57 pm

Jeff wrote:Remember who you are talking to. I have as much faith in science as you do in religion. (and as much faith as I have in religion)... which is to say none.

Except for that whole thing known as Engineering, you know, where they take Science and convert it from theory to AWESOME. Do you not believe in houses, cars, clean running water, the internet, GPSs, guns, deodorant, and the infrastructure required to serve you hamburgers quickly and cheaply?

Frost Mage · Post by **Frost Mage** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:03 am

I think you can have science and religion in your life, like Jeff said (I think). Science is pretty much indisputable, but who says that a god didn't create these theories known as gravity and physics? Why can't we still explore the universe just as we would if we weren't religious? At the end of the day, the real question should be, did God create science or not?

House of the Wolf · Post by **House of the Wolf** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:07 am

Just to add-on...

YouTube Link

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:08 am

I work in an industry where my job is to fix it when it does not work... your awesome is invalid.

ZeRoc · Post by **ZeRoc** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:56 am

Frost Mage wrote:I think you can have science and religion in your life, like Jeff said (I think). Science is pretty much indisputable, but who says that a god didn't create these theories known as gravity and physics? Why can't we still explore the universe just as we would if we weren't religious? At the end of the day, the real question should be, did God create science or not?

I'm not sure how this relates to a thread about Chick-fil-a, but I agree with this.

Arch-Mage Matt · Post by **Arch-Mage Matt** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:05 am

You... you think that people give themselves cancer?

Frost Mage · Post by **Frost Mage** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:05 am

Arch-Mage Matt wrote:You... you think that people give themselves cancer?

Nope, and I called Jeff out on it. He has not yet responded.

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:15 am

Pluto is no longer a planet... your science is very disputabel. We discussed this in another topic. Science is always proving itself wrong, I do not need to do that. Science is constantly questioning itself, because it knows it is wrong, and disputable. Disputing itself is a big part of what science is about, and what it does. ...so how am I wrong for doing what science does, by questining it?

Spoiler:

Science has succeeded becuae of it's failures. There are more failures in science, than there is success. Science is trial and error. Sometimes that error kills people. To blindly believe in scinece is to be naive and gulliabe. ...much like how people claim belief in religion is.

Ed~ · Post by **Ed~** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:22 pm

But blindly believing in science isn't a scientific approach at all! Because one doesn't believe in science. They approach it with a critical, analytical mind. They question and confront it. There isn't an ounce of silly faith in it.

Also Ed thinks the chicken-shop guy is silly, he can say bye-bye to sales.

DorostheConqueror · Post by **DorostheConqueror** » Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:53 pm

Jeff wrote:If the sutdy was unbaised, then why was I not involved?

I could have done the Super-Size Me movie, and not gained any weight. I can do a movie, and film myself eating fast food 100% of the time, and film me while I am working, and prove that all of that science is in fact, biased... and false.

If you take unhealthy people, and use them as an example, then your study is biased.

Science can make people believe whatever they want them to. They provide proof in favor of whoever is paying them to do the research. If science constantly proved the people who are paying the bills wrong, then they would be out of business. ...and yes, science is a business, it is all about money.

Remember who you are talking to. I have as much faith in science as you do in religion. (and as much faith as I have in religion)... which is to say none.

I'd just like to add, re: SuperSize Me. The movie was hardly a rigorous exercise in scientific objectivity. Most of the sequences were epically misleading, if not downright deceitful. Perfect example: the scene were he vomits his brains out after only one day of eating Mickey D's. Now, there is no exposition on this scene, but we, as the audience, are invited to draw the obvious conclusion: "McDonald's is bad for you." How could ti not be? A couple meals of the stuff, and the poor guy is retching it all out like that girl from The Exorcist!

Yet if you pay attention, this is a common reaction to eating meat from people who are accustomed to a vegetarian diet, as the filmmaker later reveals he is while discussing home life with his "food-fascist" girlfriend. He's not vomiting because it's low grade, disgusting meat (although it is). He'd be vomiting just as bad had he eaten a half pound of tender kobe beef in a posh French restaurant.

There's a whole ton of incongruities and narrative fictions woven throughout the movie, and listing them all would require it's own thread (SuperSize Me is, after all, an exercise in agitational propaganda, not an objective study of the truth). But one more thing which I found striking, directly relating to what you're talking about: arguably the fittest guy in the entire movie was the fellow who lived on nothing but BigMacs! He was thin, he was bright-eyed, he was healthy, in stark contrast to all the drooling fatasses the filmmaker encouraged us to associate with fastfood. This is not to say there's no evidence that fast food is bad for you (I believe there is), but it's hardly the death sentence food-fascists like to make it out to be.

I'd also like to address the elephant in the room: "so what?" If fast food is bad for us, that means...? Beer is bad for you. Pot is bad for you. Sitting in your room chatting on the internet instead of being outside hanging out with the local jocks is bad for you. So what if McDonalds and Chick-Fil-A and Taco Bell are bad for you? Don't eat there if it bothers you so much. Or, deal with it. Go out and train with Jeff and the SEALS.

P.S. Re: Chick-Fil-A. It's cute that people are boycotting this company because one of the owners has an economically-irrelevant social opinion that differs from the orthodox normative position on a currently trendy issue. Personally, I'm boycotting it because they don't support incest and polygamy. I'm also boycotting every other restaurant on the planet (outside a handful in Utah and Kentucky) for the very same reason. I support equal rights for all. Not special rights for the majority and Hollywood's favorite minority. If we're to accept that boycotting a business is a sane and proper response to an owner's opposition towards non-standard marital arrangements, then we must apply this principle across the board.

Wolf · Post by **Wolf** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:30 am

I don't care what the owners or operators of any company do in their private time. I start caring slightly when the company stance becomes political, and the company itself starts throwing money at politics. When that happens, the government starts to bend towards the will of a single (legally-defined) person whose money comes from those who may not share the same view yet don't have the same influence simply because of a discrepancy of money.

That being said, I'm going to play the optimist and take them for their word: It's a purely religious issue when it comes to marriage, and private citizens retain the right to express their religious views. I would be far more concerned if a company tried to influence politics to strip away non-discrimination rights from ~~GLBT people~~ anyone.

@Jeff, RE Science: What you're describing is essentially the politics of science-- which is a very real and very influential concept in modern society. However, I would not discount science itself. By its very nature, science strives for empirical data. I think that alone is enough to invest in it.

Wolfie · Post by **Wolfie** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:06 am

The guy said it because he was asked during an interview he most likely just answer turhtly and never felt people would get so mad, he funds a LOT of christian things, and some of them yes try to "cure" or fight against gays, he how ever just said he did not feel its right to have same sex marriage, just like some dont feel its right to drink at all. or something its not right not to agree with same sex marrige

He funds thousands of things, and he works through the christan lfie style, int hat life style gay marrige is wrong, its as simple as that, he should not chnage his stance just becuse he runs a food place.

I agree with him, if we turly belive in the bible we cant just “let this one go”
now I take another stance and just dont get involved in anyway, he on the other hand decides to go aginst.

to us its a sin like being drunk or liying, and we should not encourage it, as for aloowing it to happen, thats up to debate.
He is not breaking any rules, he will let you eat at his place and do other things but he dont agree with your life style like thosuands dont agree with the christain life style, there is no diffrince.

Wolf · Post by **Wolf** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:21 am

Wolfie, it seems like you had something personally to say about the issue regarding question he was asked, but I couldn't make out what it was. Am I mistaken?

Wolfie · Post by **Wolfie** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:24 am

pepole are saying that he is forcing his belives on the compony and feel that HE brought it up

they are acting like he grab the mic and yelled and told others to repent and if they did not they go to hell, he just said that he WAS aginst gay marriges in passing, he was NOT in anyway saying that "gay marriges should be banned" he just said he felt they did not belong in marrige as his belfies is marrige was made for man and women, anything else is a sin. shortly put what he said is NOT as bad as the meida and evrey is making it out to be.
He just said what we all know

it would be the same if he said he was aginst liying.

davidjgreen12 · Post by **davidjgreen12** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:39 am

Like many others I had never heard of Chick-Fil-A until I read this thread. Over here in Britland we just don't have them AFAIK.

Is the owner entitled to his opinion? Of course! Is he entitled to throw money at christian-based anti-gay-marriage groups? Again, yes!

And are pro-gay-marriage people entitled to promote a boycott against his company. Absolutely! It is all free speech.

And, as a pro-gay-marriage guy, I would be joining that boycott, but I would need Chick-Fil-A to build a branch close enough for me to avoid it first. Life just ain't fair!

Dave

Wolf · Post by **Wolf** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:39 am

That's not what I was asking, but okay:

To be sure, Cathy has in every public and private part of his life except his restaurant chain devoted a measure of his wealth to the issue. That doesn't bother me. He's a private citizen, and he has the right to express his opinions in such a way. Chick-fil-a, however, is legally tied to Wingate foundation, which has also devoted its wealth to the issue. Wingate is a charitable organization which devotes its donationary funding to political ends-- which is something I do have a problem with, but not enough to actively speak against it or do anything more than not donate to it. My real issue, as I outlined earlier, is when corporations (who are legally defined as a single person each) use their vast resources, gained through consumers who may not share their opinions, to heavily influence the government into making policy in accordance with said corporation's will. It creates a veritable oligarchy that deconstructs the democratic state more stealthily than instability. To the issue at hand, that would be preventing the passing of same-sex marriage laws, which is yet less criminal than working against non-discrimination rights. As far as I'm aware, Chick-fil-a has not openly done this, but I will not be surprised if the money trail on the same-sex marriage issue leads directly back to the restaurant chain-- which is the exact circumstance against which many people are retaliating.

Wolfie · Post by **Wolfie** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:47 am

That's not what I was asking, but okay:

what where you asking then?

. My real issue, as I outlined earlier, is when corporations (who are legally defined as a single person each) use their vast resources, gained through consumers who may not share their opinions, to heavily influence the government into making policy in accordance with said corporation's will. It creates a veritable oligarchy that deconstructs the democratic state more stealthily than instability.

I'm not so sure, a compony can chnage the stance on slavrey, would you say they should not?
I think it depends what they are doing and how. when it comes down to it the boss picks where the money gose, not the emplys thats how they work or who they buy form, you earned the money its yours, i dont feel you have any oblgation to do what they want (may be "nice to)

hundreds of componys are doing what you just said FOR gay marrige, and its consider GODD and should be praised for it, thats the problem I have with those who complain about chickfla doing it.

Wolf · Post by **Wolf** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:05 am

Wolfie wrote:I'm not so sure. If a company can change the stance on slavery, would you say they should not?

If that company used its resources to gain a much heavier influence on the government than a person should be able to, then yes, I would say that they should not.

I think it depends what they are doing and how. When it comes down to it, the boss picks where the money goes; not the employees.

Untrue. For a public company, the board of directors does. A private company is ultimately directed by its owner(s).

That's how they work or who they buy form; you earned the money, its yours. I don't feel you have any obligation to do what they want.

That's not my point. My point is that corporations should not have as extreme an influence on the government as they do because they have the money to make that happen. A government controlled through money is a profiteering business, not a public servant.

Hundreds of companies are doing what you just said FOR gay mararige...

It doesn't matter. They're throwing money into lobbying and distorting voters' power.

...and its considered GODD, and they should be praised for it. That's the problem I have with those who complain about Chick-fil-a doing it.

So you're angry at the people who express their disagreement with Cathy because other corporations-- who have no relation to these angry citizens whatsoever-- are on the opposing side of Cathy's views? Or to simplify, you're angry with one person because of another person's unrelated actions?

Wolfie · Post by **Wolfie** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:18 am

If that company used its resources to gain a much heavier influence on the government than a person should be able to, then yes, I would say that they should not.

you said they counted as one, so how dose that work?

Untrue. For a public company, the board of directors does. A private company is ultimately directed by its owner(s).

And which is he?

That's not my point. My point is that corporations should not have as extreme an influence on the government as they do because they have the money to make that happen. A government controlled through money is a profiteering business, not a public servant.

I dont think thats whats going on at all, to me it seems they are funding their supourt and that helps le tothers pick but the others still picked.

It doesn't matter. They're throwing money into lobbying and distorting voters' power.

I dont see how, i dont think componys vote... and if they do it would be by one like you said.

...and its considered GODD, and they should be praised for it. That's the problem I have with those who complain about Chick-fil-a doing it.

So you're angry at the people who express their disagreement with Cathy because other corporations-- who have no relation to these angry citizens whatsoever-- are on the opposing side of Cathy's views? Or to simplify, you're angry with one person because of another person's unrelated actions?

becuse they are mad that this guy dose the same thing on the other side.

Eltee · Post by **Eltee** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:26 am

Oh my god, this is too funny.

House of the Wolf · Post by **House of the Wolf** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:36 am

I feel like this could/should be funny, but I can only understand one side of the argument...literally, I mean...

Eltee · Post by **Eltee** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:38 am

Four wolves, four users.

What I was saying was too funny, is that Wolf and Wolfie are using that same annoying as hell method of deconstructing a post with quotes on each other.

House of the Wolf · Post by **House of the Wolf** » Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:45 am

Eltee wrote:Four wolves, four users.

What I was saying was too funny, is that Wolf and Wolfie are using that same annoying as hell method of deconstructing a post with quotes on each other.

I felt like I had to deconstruct Wolfie's posts that way, just so I could translate the damn thing.. I had no idea English could be so broken over the internet.

I am going to go take a double-dose of ibuprofen and uncross my eyes enough to drive to work, now..

Oh, and at great risk of stoking a smolder into a fire..I agree with Wolf. Speech=fine. Using corporate capital to finance public policy=not fine (for a supposedly democratic society). That's where, I think, some people in this thread are getting confused.

UESP Forums

Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? And no more Jeebus...

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?

Re: Crispy-chicken-goodness boycott? Meh..why not?