Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

What did chick fil-a actually do wrong?

Posted Oct 31, '12 at 7:12pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,087 posts

So... Unless you're going to boycott every company in the world it is discriminating against this company. Or am I wrong?.

your wrong

 

Posted Nov 1, '12 at 12:26am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,666 posts

Knight

The reason I'm arguing this is for to reasons really:
1. To argue (always nice to improve one's selfs debating skills).
2. To be controversial and mainly to show that you can't talk about this as though the gays are all good and no bad and are the saints in this case, because in reality they are being hypocrites and discriminating.

I get the impression from this that you know your argument is a load of bunk but you're using it anyway. This almost comes off as trollish.

 

Posted Nov 1, '12 at 12:32am

Ernie15

Ernie15

12,527 posts

Knight

What did chick fil-a actually do wrong?

I'll tell you what they did wrong. They let McDonald's get a hold of their basic sandwich idea. Now I have no reason to ever go to Chick Fil-A.

That is all I have to say. No debate for me, thank you. Just a large fries.

 

Posted Nov 1, '12 at 12:33am

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

215 posts

Discrimination in it's most basic term does simply mean to treat differently..

Which is what I'm saying, and since this is the definition of discriminate...

your wrong

I am not wrong :D

No, what you're doing is saying definition A (discrimination as bigotry/unfair treatment) is the same as definition B (to make a distinction) which is utterly false.

What I am saying to be perfectly clear is that by definition B of discriminate according to my Collins dictionary is that anytime anyone boycotts it is discrimination, anything there is any preferential treatment of anyone for better or worse (for any reason) it is discrimination.

I am not saying definition A and B are the same, just that by the actual meaning of the word some of you guys are hypocrites as well as the homosexuals.

but for instance, this specific case illustrates that the discrimination as it's understood commonly in law, media and society means you treat someone badly for an unjustified reason. Which is the case for chick-fil-a, and which is not the case for homosexuals boycotting it.

This whole time I have not been saying that by the law definition the homosexuals are discriminating, just that by a definition of the word they are. The way people construe definitions of words is fine, but to say I'm wrong like partydevil is when I showed and quoted the definition I used is incorrect.

 

Posted Nov 1, '12 at 12:41am

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

215 posts

I get the impression from this that you know your argument is a load of bunk but you're using it anyway. This almost comes off as trollish.

Well my argument certainly is not bunk, it is by semantics (which is all that matters when I argue)  correct. Telling me I'm wrong when I copy/paste a definition that says "to treat one person or company different from others for better or worse" is trolling. This definition does not say it has to be just or prejudicial treatment. Just that there has to be a difference between the way you treat these different companies. Therefore any type of boycott is discrimination.

Putting a serial killer behind bars is discrimination against him just because he murdered he is treated differently (justifiably albeit) than a pope. That there is plain and simple discrimination.

 

Posted Nov 1, '12 at 12:43am

Kasic

Kasic

5,564 posts

What I am saying to be perfectly clear is that by definition B of discriminate according to my Collins dictionary is that anytime anyone boycotts it is discrimination, anything there is any preferential treatment of anyone for better or worse (for any reason) it is discrimination.

I am not saying definition A and B are the same, just that by the actual meaning of the word some of you guys are hypocrites as well as the homosexuals.

Here is where you're splitting hairs with semantics, and arriving at a false conclusion.

In situation A, Chick-Fil-A is discriminating against homosexual rights by funding anti-gay groups.

In situation B, opponents to this are discriminating (in a different meaning of the word) against Chick-Fil-A as a means of protest.

A /= B and so people opposing what Chick-Fil-A did are not being hypocritical.

There is no hypocrisy. Yes, if you -really- want to push it, both sides are discriminating, but for fundamentally different reasons and thus it is not hypocrisy.

 

Posted Nov 1, '12 at 12:51am

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

215 posts

Yes, if you -really- want to push it, both sides are discriminating

Yes this is exactly half of what I have been saying :P

but for fundamentally different reasons and thus it is not hypocrisy.

The other half is that they (gay) are indulging in hypocrisy because they tell people not to judge or discriminate against them. Yet they;re doing it to Chick-Fil-A. The fundamental reason behind it is just and righteous in my own opinion, but it is still hypocrisy. They tell people not to do one thing, but then they themselves do it, just because circumstances prove poor to them,

 

Posted Nov 1, '12 at 12:57am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,841 posts

Knight

Context depending I agree, but since this isn't a legal issue I disagree. I think if it's not a legal issue then a regular dictionary will do.

P.S. All I'm doing is arguing the semantics of this definition, and by the definitions of a dictionary a few of you guys and the gays are hypocrites and are discriminating, no matter how justified it is.

It's a pretty pointless definition because everyone has people they treat better or worse. Hence everyone "discriminates", hence there would be no point at to discuss if we use such a definition.

It is a legal issue. Chick a fil was sued.

And I'm saying unless this Chick-Fil-A company is going to kill and beat gays you shouldn't compare them ever... If you're going to compareĀ  Nazis with others. At least be reasonable about it. They are no where on the same level as Nazis, thus they shouldn't be compared to them

Not every Nazi murdered Jews. But almost all Nazis discriminated on that level. If you want to be picky we can choose another group. Say white supremacists. Should they then be allowed to pursue their goals if chick a fil does?

 

Posted Nov 1, '12 at 5:54am

handlerfan

handlerfan

192 posts

I agree that what chick fil-a did was objectionable and a lot of people, both straight and gay, objected.

 

Posted Nov 1, '12 at 10:32am

dair5

dair5

2,479 posts

The other half is that they (gay) are indulging in hypocrisy because they tell people not to judge or discriminate against them. Yet they;re doing it to Chick-Fil-A.

Okay, no. You see when the gays say they don't want to be discriminated against, they're talking about discrimination in the legal sense. Nobody ever talks about discrimination with the definition "anything there is any preferential treatment of anyone for better or worse (for any reason)". If you ever see anyone talking about discrimination it will almost always be because they feel there is an unjust reason involved. Okay. Now, what the gays are saying chick-fil-a is being discriminatory (and they're right). You cannot use a different definition because that was not what they meant. Trying to use a different definition for their word when you know what they meant doesn't work. It's like if I said "Your daughter is sweet." and you replied "What? You sick cannibal! How do you know what my daughter tastes like?" So, to end, chick-fil-a discriminates against gays, gays stand up for themselves, which is not discrimination in the same sense. SO not hypocrisy.

 
Reply to What did chick fil-a actually do wrong?

You must be logged in to post a reply!