Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 132

Thread: Today is “National Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.”

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    I would say no as well. It's not an excuse, but a hypothetical factor.
    Agreed, it's a factor. Not (as I see it) a mitigating factor.

    I'm having trouble following your accountability argument. Accountability for what exactly? The electrical and chemical reactions going on inside the brain?
    The actions one takes.

    I think we're just viewing homosexuality differently. You are viewing it.....
    I don't view it, because I don't care one way or the other.

    This is why I loathe getting wrangled into defending a position that is not my own.

    Because I am not "viewing homosexuallity" as anything. I was explaining to the best of my knowledge the positions of others.

    as a tangible action being taken by the individual. I am viewing it as a reaction taking place in the brain and triggering an emotion.
    If we view it that way, everything is just "a reaction taking place int he brain", and no one would have a choice in anything. :shrug:

    EDIT: Homosexuality is defined by impulses and feelings, not whether you actually act on those impulses.
    I disagree with that definition.

  2. #62
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I don't view it, because I don't care one way or the other.

    This is why I loathe getting wrangled into defending a position that is not my own.

    Because I am not "viewing homosexuallity" as anything. I was explaining to the best of my knowledge the positions of others.
    I'm not even sure what you are defending at this point.

    I disagree with that definition.
    An interesting position.

    If a person feels thirsty and does nothing to quench that thirst, then the person is not really thirsty?

    Your position is basically that impulse is nonexistent until it is signified by a corresponding action.

  3. #63
    So is the chicken any good?

    what is their signature item?

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    I'm not even sure what you are defending at this point.
    They why keep replying?



    An interesting position.

    If a person feels thirsty and does nothing to quench that thirst, then the person is not really thirsty?
    Thirsty and Homosexual, we're back to Apples and Smurfs again.

    Your position is basically that impulse is nonexistent until it is signified by a corresponding action.
    My position is that individuals are accountable for their own actions, even if those actions are in some part a factor of genetics or upbringing.

  5. #65
    the mouthfoamin' moonbats are at it again:

    http://www.rpvnetwork.org/profiles/b...d-by-tolerance


  6. #66
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,409
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2® View Post
    So is the chicken any good?

    what is their signature item?
    Its actually pretty good. They have a "waffle style" french fry, terrific shakes and a skinned chicken sandwich for fat bastids. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

    I gonna go out of my way and eat there weekly for a while and I am not opposed to gay marriage but what is happening now is simply ridiculous.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Frequent Flyer View Post
    Check out this photos:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2913387/posts

    Barry is going to get his ass kicked in November.
    Its amazing; well paid, highly educated men and women sit in a room in front of a computer figuring out ways to manipulate the masses by dividing them and tricking them into making "choices".

    Both sides do it.

    And the unwashed masses fall for it.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Its amazing; well paid, highly educated men and women sit in a room in front of a computer figuring out ways to manipulate the masses by dividing them and tricking them into making "choices".

    Both sides do it.

    And the unwashed masses fall for it.
    What's the alternative? It's not like we can trust these guys to do anything they say they're going to do, so we might as well stand by our convictions and vote according to the "obvious" differences between two candidates.

    Will a president's stance on gay marriage have a huge impact on his tenure in office? Probably not, but that doesn't make it an unvalid reason to vote for him . . .

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by OCCH View Post
    What's the alternative? It's not like we can trust these guys to do anything they say they're going to do, so we might as well stand by our convictions and vote according to the "obvious" differences between two candidates.

    Will a president's stance on gay marriage have a huge impact on his tenure in office? Probably not, but that doesn't make it an unvalid reason to vote for him . . .
    we can stand by our convictions, which is noble, but most of the politicians stand by the convictions of the people that bankroll their campaigns not the people they are supposed to represent. But they will tell us that they acting in our best interests and they will say it with a straight face.

    As to the thread topic, the rights of the individual is a civil rights issue. Denying them the same rights afforded to every other American is against what our country stands for. The religious aspect to this issue should have no bearing on whether or not people can be legally married in the eyes of the law. The conservatives who are now champions of the constitution (since 2008 ) seem to forget that there is this little issue of separation of church and state.

    There is a fair and reasonable debate to be had about gay rights. But this chick-fil-a story is a side show meant to further divide and wedge Americans and these types of circus creations are not helping anyone. It simply causes more anger and hate and division; my side verses their side etc, etc. It taps into a very ugly and regressive portion of the human soul.

    By the way, who the hell cares what the owner of Chick-fil-A thinks about social issues? Just because he is a successful business man does not mean he is all-knowing on all topics. This is what the far-right fails to grasp; there is more to being the President of the United States then just turning a profit in a business.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 08-04-2012 at 01:16 PM.

  10. #70
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,409
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    we can stand by our convictions, which is noble, but most of the politicians stand by the convictions of the people that bankroll their campaigns not the people they are supposed to represent. But they will tell us that they acting in our best interests and they will say it with a straight.
    Interestingly I find the left standing for those who pay no tax morenthan those who pay in to the democrats coffer, In effect, buying their votes. the right, I agree with you. I know several congressional aids and a congressman to a lesser extent. they ALL agree that the DOD budget is 20 percent higher than need be BUT who would vote against it? That is your point I believe.

    Why we don't have a politician to stand up and simply explain why we need a balanced budget. Why we have public employees expanding our deficits and that we as a nation need to suck it up.

    Raising taxes 50 percent won't stop the problems of this nation.

    Just look at the TSA and Post Office as a very simple example. Organizations with a clear mission but clearly to the benefit of public employees and the detriment of taxpayers.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    we can stand by our convictions, which is noble, but most of the politicians stand by the convictions of the people that bankroll their campaigns not the people they are supposed to represent. But they will tell us that they acting in our best interests and they will say it with a straight face.

    As to the thread topic, the rights of the individual is a civil rights issue. Denying them the same rights afforded to every other American is against what our country stands for. The religious aspect to this issue should have no bearing on whether or not people can be legally married in the eyes of the law. The conservatives who are now champions of the constitution (since 2008 ) seem to forget that there is this little issue of separation of church and state.

    There is a fair and reasonable debate to be had about gay rights. But this chick-fil-a story is a side show meant to further divide and wedge Americans and these types of circus creations are not helping anyone. It simply causes more anger and hate and division; my side verses their side etc, etc. It taps into a very ugly and regressive portion of the human soul.

    By the way, who the hell cares what the owner of Chick-fil-A thinks about social issues? Just because he is a successful business man does not mean he is all-knowing on all topics. This is what the far-right fails to grasp; there is more to being the President of the United States then just turning a profit in a business.
    You do realize the left started this whole thing, right? The owner is entitled to whatever opinion he wants, but the left was "outraged" by his opinion and tried to blackball the chain.

    That obviously backfired as people by the thousands showed their support for the owner's viewpoints -- all legal and within the bounds of personal expression.

    If you think the far right/conservatives are less tolerant than far left/liberals -- I just don't know what to tell you . . .

  12. #72
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,517
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Sure.

    If you grow up in an alcoholic and abusive household, you do not get a free pass for drinking and hitting your kids.

    You still choose to do it.

    The religious right sees the Homosexual issue the same way IMO. If it's not a curable medical condition (i.e. genetic), then regardless of how you developed into being gay, it's still a personal, controlable choice, and they (the faithful) are free to judge you for it, like any other choice we make every day.

    Personally, I don't really care why you're gay one way or the other. It's the great thing about being a Libertarian of sorts, I'm free to not care what you do with your body in your private life. Whatever works, whyever it works, is fine by me as long as I'm not involved. Works both ways too, if you want to be "cured" if it turns out genetics plays a role, thats cool by me too, I truly do not care or feel it's my business.



    Standing next to someone gives you total understanding of theri genetic code, eh?

    If you say so, I'll stick with my usual "I have no idea whay they're gay, and I don't care anyway. Thats their business, not mine".
    The more it is shown homosexuality is inborn and not a choice the more demand s for acceptance of social simulacrums approximating normal ones grow; curiously any move or research into eradicating the abnormality or even stating real stats (eg homosexuality is nowhere near 10% of the population) gets shelved by the militants.

    Some lib-skewed discussion here:


    http://www.bri.ucla.edu/bri_weekly/news_050812_4.asp

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    As to the thread topic, the rights of the individual is a civil rights issue. Denying them the same rights afforded to every other American is against what our country stands for.
    I fully support gay civil unions, but THIS argument is patently disnoest.

    The "right" to marraige is a right to marry someone of the opposite gender, as biologicly and a few thousand years of human history deems appropriate.

    Gays are NOT "denied" that right. They can marry someone of the opposite gender. They choose not to engage in that right.

    What they want is an expansion, a NEW right. The right to form a legal union with someone of their own gender, a right that no one, gay or strait, is currently permitted to have.

    It is dishonesty such as this that does more to harm arguments than help them. This is not a equal rights issue, it's a reasonable expansion and redefinition of rights under the STATE, i.e. civil contracts, issue.

    By the way, who the hell cares what the owner of Chick-fil-A thinks about social issues? Just because he is a successful business man does not mean he is all-knowing on all topics. This is what the far-right fails to grasp
    Given the reaction, it seems this is something liberals and homosexuals have failed to grasp.

    And, of course, those who profit for the anger of the two groups above.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I fully support gay civil unions, but THIS argument is patently disnoest.

    The "right" to marraige is a right to marry someone of the opposite gender, as biologicly and a few thousand years of human history deems appropriate.

    Gays are NOT "denied" that right. They can marry someone of the opposite gender. They choose not to engage in that right.

    What they want is an expansion, a NEW right. The right to form a legal union with someone of their own gender, a right that no one, gay or strait, is currently permitted to have.

    It is dishonesty such as this that does more to harm arguments than help them. This is not a equal rights issue, it's a reasonable expansion and redefinition of rights under the STATE, i.e. civil contracts, issue.



    Given the reaction, it seems this is something liberals and homosexuals have failed to grasp.

    And, of course, those who profit for the anger of the two groups above.
    I fail to see how I have been dishonest? Dishonesty suggests that I have been less then forthright with my beliefs.

    Your argument that its not a civil rights issue based on the fact that "human history has never deemed it appropriate" is flawed. For one thing, there has been recorded history of legalized gay marriage (ancient rome, netherlands and seven states in our own country, as examples). Beyond the flawed argument of historical precedent is the troubling idea that because something has never been conceded as a right it therefore can never be considered a human right going forward. Based on that line of thinking African slaves in America could never have been emancipated, marriages between blacks and whites could never have been made legal in certain states nor schools desegregated.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 08-04-2012 at 09:20 PM.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    I fail to see how I have been dishonest? Dishonesty suggests that I have been less then forthright with my beliefs.
    Less that forthright with the FACTS.

    As explained above.

    I support the issue.

    I don't support liars, even if working for an issue I support.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Less that forthright with the FACTS.

    As explained above.

    I support the issue.

    I don't support liars, even if working for an issue I support.
    What the hell?

    If I have been less then forthright with the facts that I provided then refute them. Dispute the historical points and explain where they are inaccurate.

    And if you can't prove them to be inaccurate then maybe you can explain the need for personal attacks.

  17. #77
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,409
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    What the hell?

    If I have been less then forthright with the facts that I provided then refute them. Dispute the historical points and explain where they are inaccurate.

    And if you can't prove them to be inaccurate then maybe you can explain the need for personal attacks.
    I'm with you here.... Gay rights is no more an expansion of legal bounds than women's rights were in the 20 s. I don't like gay marriage but I would not impose my personal view on the country.

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    I'm with you here.... Gay rights is no more an expansion of legal bounds than women's rights were in the 20 s. I don't like gay marriage but I would not impose my personal view on the country.
    Excellent job on your part to include the women's suffrage issue. It is a powerful example of a rights issue that was previously not allowed in the United States.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    What the hell?

    If I have been less then forthright with the facts that I provided then refute them. Dispute the historical points and explain where they are inaccurate.

    And if you can't prove them to be inaccurate then maybe you can explain the need for personal attacks.
    I already did, but I'll do it again if thats whats required.

    Marriage is the right to form a civil (contract) Union with a member of the opposite sex.

    Gays are not denied that right. A homosexual is as free as a heterosexual to form a civil union with a member of the opposite sex.

    There is no right, for anyone of any gender or sexuality, to form that same civil (contract) union with a member of the same sex. You are not treated differently is you are a man, or women, or gay or strait, none of them can form that union. By definition that Union is a merger of man and women.

    As such, it is not, in fact, a case of unequal rights, as every person, regardless of gender or other standard factors, is equally allowed to form a civil union with a person of the opposite sex.

    It is an obvious case of expansion of rights to include same-same as equal to same-different. A right where no right previously existed, a redefinition of the civil union/marriage to include those never before covered by it (legally) under our system.

    It is not in any form the same as Womens Rights, as Women were treated differently for the same rights as a man, only because they are a women. Men could vote. Women could not vote. Same right, different treatement. Gay men have the exact same rights as strait men, and the exact same limitations, those limitations being the traditional, normal, biological-pairing form of marriage, supported by the State in the form of the civil contract, that of a merger with a person of the opposite sex. No court would ever say "no, you cannot marry a women because you are gay". THAT would be unequal treatemnt under an existing right.

    Just because gays prefer somethign other than what the right is, does not make their desire an unequal treatemnt under the Law. A strait man may love his truck, but he's not being descriminated against becuase he cannot marry it. No one, of any gender, can marry their truck. Thats equal. To expand marriage to include trucks, thats expansion/redefinition.

    Simplistic regurgitation of talking points will not make this a case of unequal rights. And being either dishonest, or ignorant, as to what the real issue is will only serve to weaken those who support it. This is a very clear case of redefiniting something, expanding it, broadeneing it, to include things that have never been covered under it before, in this case the expansion of the contract to include same-sex pairings. pairings neither strait nor gay have legally been allowed previously.
    Last edited by Warfish; 08-04-2012 at 10:54 PM.

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I already did, but I'll do it again if thats whats required.

    Marriage is the right to form a civil (contract) Union with a member of the opposite sex.

    Gays are not denied that right. A homosexual is as free as a heterosexual to form a civil union with a member of the opposite sex.

    There is no right, for anyone of any gender or sexuality, to form that same civil (contract) union with a member of the same sex. You are not treated differently is you are a man, or women, or gay or strait, none of them can form that union. By definition that Union is a merger of man and women.

    As such, it is not, in fact, a case of unequal rights, as every person, regardless of gender or other standard factors, is equally allowed to form a civil union with a person of the opposite sex.

    It is an obvious case of expansion of rights to include same-same as equal to same-different. A right where no right previously existed, a redefinition of the civil union/marriage to include those never before covered by it (legally) under our system.

    It is not in any form the same as Womens Rights, as Women were treated differently for the same rights as a man, only because they are a women. Men could vote. Women could not vote. Same right, different treatement. Gay men have the exact same rights as strait men, and the exact same limitations, those limitations being the traditional, normal, biological-pairing form of marriage, supported by the State in the form of the civil contract, that of a merger with a person of the opposite sex. No court would ever say "no, you cannot marry a women because you are gay". THAT would be unequal treatemnt under an existing right.

    Just because gays prefer somethign other than what the right is, does not make their desire an unequal treatemnt under the Law. A strait man may love his truck, but he's not being descriminated against becuase he cannot marry it. No one, of any gender, can marry their truck. Thats equal. To expand marriage to include trucks, thats expansion/redefinition.

    Simplistic regurgitation of talking points will not make this a case of unequal rights. And being either dishonest, or ignorant, as to what the real issue is will only serve to weaken those who support it. This is a very clear case of redefiniting something, expanding it, broadeneing it, to include things that have never been covered under it before, in this case the expansion of the contract to include same-sex pairings. pairings neither strait nor gay have legally been allowed previously.
    I will agree to disagree with you like a gentleman. You should take care to do the same. There is no need to make personal attacks.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us