"Ans so... The epic saga ends... with Nancy Drew..."
The Spill Movie Community
If it's crap ... We'll tell you
Follow Spill!
Latest Activity
King of the Koopas posted a status"Dear Hollywood.com, please find it in your heart to give Jeff and Jason the rights to all the Loading Bar stuff without charging them!"
FMC posted a status"Hello Whovians. Continental Breakfast has a spoilercast on Dr. Who Season 7. Check it out.
http://ning.it/127dxdw"
Music
Chick-Fil-A
Let's all sit in a circle and talk about how much we hate chick-fil-a right now. Okay? Okay.
Views: 681
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by MDS on -
Not wanting to eat food because someone said something..... Okay, how many times growing up did your PARENTS either say or do something you didn't like, didn't agree with, or didn't want them to do anymore... and yet you still ate their food.
Not eating the food because someone said something..... RETARDED
Not eating the food because it tastes bad..... Logical
Eating Bojangle's instead of Chick-Fil-A...... MUCH better food.
-
Permalink Reply by Chig Champa on -
So boycotting something because someone said something is retarded?
Like when the bus driver used to say "back of the bus, nigger."?
-
Permalink Reply by MDS on
-
Boycotting the bus? Yes, that's stupid.
Creating a social movement that causes the bus to either fire or replace the driver, establish new guidelines and regulations to prevent said bus driver from having any kind of power on the bus... and I don't know, maybe creating a country-wide social movement to ensure that any kind of repeated actions were outlawed?.... Logical.
-
Permalink Reply by Chig Champa on
-
Where does quibbling over pointless semantics fall on your scale?
-
Permalink Reply by Gabriel on -
Boycotting something is part of creating a social movement. It's embedded in the process.
You can't compare the adolescence example to the Chick-Fil-A scenario. A parent telling you that you need to do better in school versus a CEO of a major company stating that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to participate in marriage are two completely different things. One is a natural occurrence, the other is a major ideological conflict. The latter is much more serious than a parent telling their kid that the music they listen to sucks.
I don't see how boycotting in this situation is retarded. Boycotting plays a major role in battling oppression. I don't see what's wrong with saying: "I'm not eating your food because you believe in something that oppresses millions of people". So vegetarians, vegans, and or animal rights activists are wrong for boycotting major fast food chains? It's a statement. I think that if you believe Chick-Fil-A is prejudice, it would be stupid not to boycott them.
-
Permalink Reply by Mason Daniel on -
You do know that they are donating their profits to anti-gay organizations, right?
-
Permalink Reply by MDS on
-
Yes... AND? If you are going to attempt to boycott every company that uses it's profits for something you don't like, then you might as well never step outside of the house ever again.
Look at how many companies donate (out of their profits) to political groups or individuals. Look at how many companies use their profits to pay each other "bonuses" instead of donating that money to local charities. Look at how much Coca-Cola and Pepsi donated to someone's political re-election? Any company is going to use it's profits the way that the people who run that company want to spend those profits. I might not agree with everything that Coca-Cola uses it's profits for, but I'm still going to use Coca-Cola products.
-
Permalink Reply by Gabriel on
-
Just because you can't boycott a particular product doesn't mean you can't advocate against their malpractice. Scenario: If my power company (the only electric company in my state) is investing their profits in bonuses instead of community programs, would I stop using their service? In this case, no, because I need electricity in my house. But it doesn't stop me from advocating, petitioning and making a statement that their wrong.
What Mason was implying was that we need to advocate for people that are oppressed. If we go with your train of thought, we're just stuck in awareness. Awareness doesn't do shit unless action is involved. It's nice knowing these corporations and conglomerates are doing things behind-the-scenes, but what are you going to do about it? The impression you give off is that you just don't care and it's beyond your power to change the system.
-
Permalink Reply by Dirac on -
You are correct: kids are retarded if they eat their parents' food even though they disagree with things their parents said, particularly abused children. I don't know why they can't be more logical and just go to someone else for food. It can't possibly have anything to do with the fact that they're... I don't know... children who are dependent on their parents for sustenance; that's just crazy talk!
I've never been to Chick-Fil-A, and considering what I know about them, I certainly won't change that anytime soon. Not because of the CEO's comments about gay couples, mind you (I never paid attention to that news story); it's more due to the fact that the organization, itself, has been donating to anti-gay marriage groups, including ones that have lobbied against gay marriage, since at least 2003. It's not about an individual's words, it's about a company's actions. If they want to politicize themselves in such a fashion, then consumers are more than justified in boycotting their products for political reasons. I don't see how that is "retarded" at all.
-
Permalink Reply by MDS on
-
Where are you getting "saying something you disagree with" into child abuse? Since when was "clean your room" or "don't do that" called abuse?
-
Permalink Reply by Dirac on
-
Actually, I was referring to my own experiences when my dad used to call me and my siblings "useless pieces of shit" and my mother a "fat whore", among other things, which I tended to disagree with. To be fair, you never specified that the remarks were as mundane as "clean your room" or "don't do that" (which are commands, not opinions, so it's not a suitable analogy for this situation), so I interpreted your ambiguous wording of "saying something you disagree with" in a way that could apply to my childhood. If your intention was not for people to relate your message to their own experiences (which, I assumed, was the point of being so vague), you should have been more specific.
Regardless, that was far from the main point of my comment. Since you evidently require guidance in picking out said point, here it is: the reason children ate their parents' food even though they may have disagreed with their statements was because they were children. Minors. Dependents. It's not all that easy for children to go to another household for food in an effort to boycott their own parents (at least, not when I was growing up). I didn't think such a simple concept required further elaboration, but I've been wrong before.
-
Permalink Reply by Amy Ledford on -
haha
© 2013 Created by The Spill Crew.
