SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Beyond the comprehension of
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1528837000

Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 06/12/18 at 13:56:40

Title: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/12/18 at 13:56:40

Lefties

But absotively, posilutely,
Correct

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/06/12/andrew-garfield-demands-christians-bake-cake-demand-makes-commercials-jack-phillips-bakery/

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by LostArtist on 06/12/18 at 14:01:02

See, JOG, you've been doing this for quite awhile now, just antagonizing the other side cause you can't see through your hate....

Yeah, I'm going back to feeling sad for you.

To you, there is no radical right wing, your side can't get too radical for you.

sad . :-/ :'(

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/12/18 at 14:04:23

Pointing out the hypocrisy of others isn't hate. It's holding them accountable for their actions.
If it's GOOD to Force someone to Do what they don't Want to do, then it's GOOD!
Right?

Defeat me with a rational argument.
Butthurtedness wins nothing.

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by LostArtist on 06/12/18 at 14:21:19

716E686F72754474447C6E62291B0 wrote:

Apparently you are the only one allowed to do that then? When others do it on Twitter, you call them out for being vicious. How dare liberals hold people accountable, "oh no, only ME, JOG, can do that, I'm special."

When you actually make an argument instead of being a snide jerk, maybe I'll debate you.

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/12/18 at 14:32:53

IOW, you're stumped.
No answer on the Muslim woman who refused to wax the MAN who declared himself a woman.
No answer on boys beating girls.
Where is your support for women?

And no answer on
Forcing people to do what they don't agree with.
But
I've got nothing.
You have the moral high ground.

LOL..

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/12/18 at 14:34:17

Apparently you are the only one allowed to do that then? When others do it on Twitter, you call them out for being vicious

SHow me.

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by LostArtist on 06/12/18 at 16:18:06

657A7C7B6661506050687A763D0F0 wrote:

Apparently you are the only one allowed to do that then? When others do it on Twitter, you call them out for being vicious

SHow me.

look at your other thread!

those twitters were saying, hey, if you support us and LBGTQ issues, then don't support someone (Chik-Fil-A) that doesn't even think we should exist. now this is me assuming that that guy from the other thread is pro LBGTQ in some way and has catered to them in the past, idk though.

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/12/18 at 16:55:10

You don't know who he is..
And looking is too much?

How do you conclude I have Twitter?

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/12/18 at 16:59:44

Hidden skillfully in the first sentence

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Sunday expressed regret over eating at Chick-fil-A, because of the chicken company’s CEO’s personal views on gay marriage.
Dorsey tweeted a screenshot f

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by LostArtist on 06/13/18 at 16:14:47

I did research, and Jack Dorsey, has been sympathetic to the LBGTQ community in the past.

and with all the noise about this recent incident, finding that out wasn't on the first couple of pages of the search, not that it was super hard, but it wasn't a given, so EXCUUUUUUSSSSSEEEE MEEEEEE . :P

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by eau de sauvage on 06/13/18 at 18:05:27

796660677A7D4C7C4C74666A21130 wrote:

Defeat me with a rational argument.

An argument in the dialectic sense is not about winning or losing, defeat or victory, it's about finding out what is true. Since you obviously are not interested in taking up an argument in good faith with this aim, it is not possible to 'defeat' you.

I wouldn't use FSA's 'sad' to describe you, I'd be more inclined to use the word 'pathetic'.

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/13/18 at 22:50:19

524D4B4C51566757675F4D410A380 wrote:

I don't see your rebuttal

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by Eegore on 06/14/18 at 05:39:31

"An argument in the dialectic sense is not about winning or losing, defeat or victory, it's about finding out what is true. Since you obviously are not interested in taking up an argument in good faith with this aim, it is not possible to 'defeat' you."

This is pretty accurate.

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by WebsterMark on 06/14/18 at 06:31:17

For what its worth; I'm in Raleigh this week and purposely ate at Chic Filet twice.

The whole point is Dorsey had to apologize for eating at one of the largest fast food restaurants. That's ridiculous.

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by raydawg on 06/14/18 at 06:55:48

Web, I think this whole argument is disengenous.
Where one eats has no bearing on the matter.
It’s silly symbolism at best.
It does not bring understanding through dialogue, and only fosters exposure to extremism on both ends of the issue.
Media plays it for revenue.

The Obama’s believed all through their lives marriage was what the Bible says, and only under pressure did they “say” they changed their “views.”
That is not the same as saying you reject your biblical teachings/beliefs/heart.
When you change your views for personal promotions, votes, money, etc, is that really intellectually honest?

Boycotting is a means to expressing your displeasure, but again, it solves nothing.
Shall we boycott travel/business with Germany because of some of its historical actions and beliefs?

Boycott the South, because of slavery?

Denounce Islam because of ISIS?

It’s all silly, enjoy your food ;D

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by Eegore on 06/14/18 at 08:07:38

I think a lot of this has to do with Dorsey choosing to be CEO of a company that puts him in the spotlight. Eating where you want without anyone caring is out the window, his career choice eliminates that.

A lot of his actions will be criticized because its easier to look at what other people do than to look at what we do ourselves. That is after all how celebrity media makes money.

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by MnSpring on 06/14/18 at 08:58:18

"... It’s all silly, enjoy your food" ;D

Boycotting, Probably something personal.
And it may be, ‘can something be done’.

Mac&D’s, I Haven’t been their for, 10 + years now, after they dropped a chicken sandwich on the floor, scooped it back up, and gave it to me. I wrote the Corporate office, told them what happened, they, and the store, sent me coupons for free, B.M. Meals. One day I walked into the store, and just passed out the 4 of them to strangers standing in line. Won’t change anything, but not shouting it from the roof tops. When on the road, I stop at a different place.

When on the road, and need gas, I stop at a gas station, (In most places outside of MN, it is pay at the pump, or pre-pay inside), When I walk in to pre-pay, I see the sign, ’No Guns In Here”, I pull out my wallet, hand a card to a person behind the counter and tell them to give it to his/her, Management. Walk back outside, get in the car, and drive to the Next gas station.
The card says, “You have the Right to Ban Guns, I have the Right Not to spend money here”. Now 2-3-4 States away, does it matter, most probably not, that card hits the ‘round’ file, as soon as the door shuts. Then never saw me before, and will not again, and they just don’t care.
However, Local, I have seen 4 signs come down, BECAUSE, many more people, are doing the same thing.
Still do it, Personal, Not shouting from the rooftops.

D icks Sporting goods. One here in Mpls, have been in the store couple of times, never spend any money, because their was nothing their that interested me. Now, after their recent, ‘gun banning’, I will not spend any money their, and I believe, they will NOT, make any money on and firearm accessories they may have left, simply because they don’t have those customers. (The same as a fancy, frilly, exclusive dress store, putting in a line of Filson, Stormy Kromer warm Wool caps, and expecting to sell them)
Who knows. Perhaps the ‘number cruncher's’, looked at the sq feet the, Firearms area was taking up. and decided their are different things that can take up that space, and make more profit. And now, is the time to change, because of a recent event. And the people they Want, to buy those things, are people that, don’t, want to buy firearms things. So the Media just gave them a bunch of FREE advertising.

Their is a liquor store I didn’t go into, after the owner said he is supporting HRC, (he is out of business now, probably would have made it, if he kept his mouth shut). Their are a couple of restaurants I don’t go to, because it is Really $hitty food. And a “Circle K”, in Ajo Az, I will Never step foot in again.

So, Boycotting ? Where I was, Personally, wronged, or where, I believe my actions, may make a difference, or make one think. about the situation.
Yea, I do it.

A person, who will not go to a park, or swim/sail/fish/beach, because that person, owned Slaves, and that it is named after a former. V.P. who Dies 10 years before the War Between the States. Well, I don’t think that will do anything, except take the Media Happy, so they can sell more ads.

So not, Spending money, at a place.
Is it Boycotting, or a personal preference ?
Not so simple. Will take many, Many hours in a boat fishing, to work out the details.

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by Eegore on 06/14/18 at 09:21:30

I think boycott is done as demonstration, protest or as punishment. For those reasons specifically, not the myriad of other reasons that would fit into personal preference.

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/14/18 at 09:48:53

Again, the POINT that nobody will address

it's GOOD to Force someone to Do what they don't Want to do, then it's GOOD!
Right?

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by raydawg on 06/14/18 at 10:11:45

MSpring, does your choice to not support a business...
Make or break it....???
I think it satisfies your own need, more than accomplishing any great change on those who you hope to sway....
Sorta like peeing in the ocean ;D

Jog, no one is forcing anybody, where do you leap to that assessment?
Shaming has been a means of manipulation since the early ages.
It has worked, that’s why it’s still around, however it’s as useless as tits on a man, unless you allow yourself to be manipulated by other mitigating factors

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by LostArtist on 06/14/18 at 10:28:58

437176676071665975667F140 wrote:

I mostly agree with that, but in this case, he was using Chik-Fil-A as a promotional for his own company's pay pal like service, aka, he was representing his whole company and promoting Chik-Fil-A at the same time. So if Chik-Fil-A doesn't fit what he wants his company's image to be, he has a responsibility to be more careful in representing his company to his audience

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by MnSpring on 06/14/18 at 11:41:04

697670776A6D5C6C5C64767A31030 wrote:

Again, the POINT that nobody will address it's GOOD to Force someone to Do what they don't Want to do, then it's GOOD! Right?

(The Long Answer)

That’s tough to answer. And the, ‘Forcing’ has a Lot to do with, a Political view.

Take a Co Rd here, the speed limit is 55,
Many on a stretch, (very straight and exc. sight for several miles), drive 75.
Now, are they, ‘Forced’, to drive 55 ?
Or do they, ‘choose’, to Drive 75,
and only if caught, ‘forced’, to pay the fine ?
(So the same with robbing a bank, etc. etc. etc,.)
That is a, ‘Law’. People are forced to pay the penalty of breaking the law.
Not much Political their.

Now take humans with a D ick, If they ’Say’, the Magic words:
“I Identify As a Girl”
Several Places, will Allow them to Pretend.
(As it is a, LAW, to Allow, the Pretending)
So in this case, no one is, Forcing someone to, pretend.
Yet it is being, ‘Forced’, to ALLOW, the, ‘Pretending.
That, would be Political.

Two examples, which can be expound on to fit many situations.

Here is a tricky one:
A State makes marijuana legal. 2 studies were done, one said, accidents rate went up, another said they were the same.
What they BOTH, failed to say: is One counted ONLY, “fatal crashes”. And the other counted ONLY, ‘minor accidents’.
Now, nobody, ‘Forced’ anyone to take marijuana, no one forced anyone to drive while taking marijuana.
No one, ‘forced a marijuana smoker, to be the cause of a Accident.
Other factors come into play, as to who was at fault, and why. One maybe marijuana, or may not.
And it will Depend on the Law.
NOT on the, PERSONAL, opinion of a person, liking or disliking, marijuana.
Like a Cake Baker, who was, FORCED, to believe the Personal Opinion, of people who liked someone of a particular sexual preference.
Just the SAME, as a, 'Forcing' a person smoking marijuana, who was in a accident, to, 'believe' the personal opinion, of a person who does NOT LIKE, marijuana, that marijuana the reason for the accident.

‘Force’, does exist, yet I believe many times it is confused with choice.
Say I work in a government place, and I see what, (I believe), is a male Pedophile, going into a girls bathroom, just after a little girls goes in.
I am, ‘FORCED’ to do nothing about it, because it is the law.
Can I do something about it? (What I believe is right ?)
Can I drive 75, when the sign says 55 ?
Say I am, ‘anti-gun’, (I know, I Know). Someone clearly has a gun, the place/state, all allows it, they walk into a Bank.
I am, ‘FORCED’ to do nothing about it, because it is the law.
Can I do something about it? (What I believe is right ?)
Can I drive 75, when the sign says 55 ?
So, which one, if, ‘Forced’ to believe something thy do not believe in?
Clearly these are political, as two L/R, believers, will believe one or the other.
So, would it be forced ?

Then, Driving from point A to B. Traffic Stops, and one is Stuck for Hours.
Don’t know why, but you are, ‘Forced’, to be stuck.
Now if it is a BLM Crying fest, No one is, Forcing you to believe the Criers.
Just as if it is a Major Accident, and a Helicopter has to land on the freeway,
No one is, ‘Forcing’, you to believe in Car Accidents.
Yet, Some, ‘Expect’, you to believe in one, not the other.

So, is one, ‘Forced’ to pay a % of money to the Government.
Or only if, ‘caught’ ? (and a whole bunch of, like things)

Is someone, ‘forced’, to Believe, a, ‘Pretender’, No.
Is someone, ‘forced’, to Allow, a, ‘Pretender’, Yes.

"...it's GOOD to Force someone to Do what they don't Want to do, then it's GOOD! Right?..."

(The Short Answer)

NO.

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by MnSpring on 06/14/18 at 11:51:45

“…MSpring, does your choice to not support a business… Make or break it …”

In most cases.. The cases where the, ’…No Guns…” signs were taken down.
Was it the result from, Me, Others, less business generally, all three. ?

“…I think it satisfies your own need, more than accomplishing any great change on those who you hope to sway…”

Yep, Not going to those places, affects them, the same amount as a speck of sand on a beach.

“…Sorta like peeing in the ocean…”

LOL, A Yea, like throwing a Match in a Bonfire, is DOES, change the Temperature of the fire, but who cares. LOL

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by Eegore on 06/14/18 at 12:50:53

"Again, the POINT that nobody will address it's GOOD to Force someone to Do what they don't Want to do, then it's GOOD! Right? "

No. Of course as that sentence is put then it could include things like forcing someone to kill their child, or forcing someone to jump in front of a bus. So no it is not good to force someone to do what they don't want to as that could be anything.

Also the answer is Yes. It could include things like forcing a child murderer to go to prison, or driving lessons for a bus driver.

Specifically if you are asking if its good to force Dorsey to apologize then I would question exactly what "forced" means to you and how he was forced to do something. I consider forced to mean grave bodily injury or death to himself or others if he did not comply.

Are you asking should a CEO be forced to apologize in order to keep his job?

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/14/18 at 21:37:28

Was it GOOD to try to FORCE the baker to make the cake?
Every lefty agreed he should.
I explained why it was wrong.
This guy buys a thinking SANDWICH and lefties go Bananas.
And why?
Because THEY don't go there.
And by GOD if you're a lefty,
You better not either.
Lefties are tyrants.

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by WebsterMark on 06/15/18 at 04:44:23

Righties occasionally pull this stunt but but rarely. The owner of Scott Vest did an interview in which he said he advertises on Fox News because if their dumb enough to watch Fox, they'll believe anything we tell them. Unfortunately for him, a lot of business travelers use his vest so weren't too happy and he was forced to sell his shares and get out. That's rare.

The Dorsey thing was a little different as he felt he had to apologize because he mention Chick in a tweet. There was a hilarious article in a New York paper about a Chick opening in Manhatten and you'd have thought aliens had landed and opened a cafe. This one hard core leftie writer who was in the cool kids New York group as far as you could get, sounded like one of those National Geographic narrators talking about how lions live. The funniest part is he had no idea he sounded as if he were doing a comic routine. Talk about out of touch.....

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by Eegore on 06/15/18 at 05:38:41

"Was it GOOD to try to FORCE the baker to make the cake?"

No.

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/15/18 at 06:17:25

6747454D5047220 wrote:

No, it is a big deal to lefties because he's a big shot who isn't toeing the line.
Lefties DEMAND everyone be outraged by the Christian business.

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by Eegore on 06/15/18 at 06:32:04

I was referring to the fact he chose his career and without that its possible that nobody would care where he eats. If lefties care its because as you stated he's a "big shot".

"No, it is a big deal to lefties because he's a big shotwho isn't toeing the line."

Lefties, whoever that is, wouldn't have a platform that we would be discussing if it wasn't profitable to report on what these CEO's or any public figure or celebrity does. Dorsey wouldn't be reported on if he didn't choose to be where he is, and that's how I treat this type of thing.

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/15/18 at 10:56:50

Is it wrong to attack him and demand he not eat the chikkin?

Title: Re: Beyond the comprehension of
Post by LostArtist on 06/15/18 at 11:05:46

3D2224233E3908380830222E65570 wrote:

that's not accurate

it wasn't that he bought the sandwich, he could have bought all the chicken from Chik-Fil-A and no one would care.

He used his money saving coupon app to save money on that purchase, again, no one cares.

He tweeted that out to show how his app works (he's the CEO of that app), He has a history of supporting LBGTQ issues, it is Pride month so people are more sensitive to this issue than usual. I could have been interpreted that his money saving app (I forget what it's called) and Chik-Fil-A are in a partnership, this is not clear, idk how the app works, But at the minimum, he is advertising Chik-Fil-A, aka promoting an "anti LBGTQ" (and I honestly think that's over stated a lot of the time, which is why I put it in quotes) so that riled a "bunch" of people up, seeing an ally promote a foe... and those people used their first amendment rights to let him know. He apologized and everyone seems to be okay with that except JOG here....

and Tyrants are Tyrants,

Remember the Government of Georgie punishing Delta for dropping their NRA discount... and Webster's example as well, and the boycotts of Lowe's for advertising on some show or something... and republicans/conservatives all calling for Samantha B to be fired because she vulgarly attacked Ivanka, and the right attacking Kathy Griffin for that photo, and and and... do I really have to go on...

both sides do this.