I guess I'd boycott the Yankees then... PETA Al Gore Apple Hippies celebrities and Russel Brand.
And that is a crazy list of things to boycott.
Chick-Fil-A Scandal V2.0 With Firefox CEO
Chick-Fil-A Scandal v2.0 with Firefox CEO
Life must be tough for you then lol... silly cubs fans...
fonewear said: »
I guess I'd boycott the Yankees then... PETA Al Gore Apple Hippies celebrities and Russel Brand.
And that is a crazy list of things to boycott.
And that is a crazy list of things to boycott.
Not if you're a religious ultra right wing conservative, all those things you mentioned strike ire with that particular type of person.
Since I get accused of being a progressive, liberal, radical, socialist, and whatever other dross passes for commentary by some of the trolls here, I just want to point out that I hate pretty much everything on fonewear's list, too. I have no idea who Russel Brand is, though, and hate all baseball teams indiscriminately.
[+]
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
Since I get accused of being a progressive, liberal, radical, socialist, and whatever other dross passes for commentary by some of the trolls here, I just want to point out that I hate pretty much everything on fonewear's list, too. I have no idea who Russel Brand is, though, and hate all baseball teams indiscriminately.
A lot of gay supporters, or those indifferent to it once held these views. I know this because I remember 20 years ago.
It's ludicrous how SO MANY people toss around words like bigot at quiet little targets like this when they have supported politicians who were then-supportive of DOMA and its ilk.
I was raised to believe gay waa wrong. I moved past it and m not ashamed to admit that but I don't feel entitled to attack someone who does, aside from the particularly hateful like WBC.
It's ludicrous how SO MANY people toss around words like bigot at quiet little targets like this when they have supported politicians who were then-supportive of DOMA and its ilk.
I was raised to believe gay waa wrong. I moved past it and m not ashamed to admit that but I don't feel entitled to attack someone who does, aside from the particularly hateful like WBC.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
Since I get accused of being a progressive, liberal, radical, socialist, and whatever other dross passes for commentary by some of the trolls here, I just want to point out that I hate pretty much everything on fonewear's list, too. I have no idea who Russel Brand is, though, and hate all baseball teams indiscriminately.
Because it's more fun than clubbing baby seals to death with other baby seals?
Because 5 out of the 17 voices in my head think I should and that's the closest I get to consensus?
Because Obama?
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
Since I get accused of being a progressive, liberal, radical, socialist, and whatever other dross passes for commentary by some of the trolls here, I just want to point out that I hate pretty much everything on fonewear's list, too. I have no idea who Russel Brand is, though, and hate all baseball teams indiscriminately.
Because it's more fun than clubbing baby seals to death with other baby seals?
Because 5 out of the 17 voices in my head think I should and that's the closest I get to consensus?
Because Obama?
Why do you hate anything? Why do you hate something that, in reality, doesn't effect you at all? Why do you feel emotional towards something that does you no direct harm?
Why do you hate?
Lakshmi.Flavin said: »
Life must be tough for you then lol... silly cubs fans...
No wai, the white sox melted down today while the cubs won, happy day.
fonewear said: »
I'd also like to boycott stereotypes.
you're a stereotype, do you boycott yourself?
[+]
What constitutes direct harm? And why do you think someone should be emotionally disinvested from something that affects the world generally even if not oneself exclusively?
However, the more important thing to point out here is that I am using a colloquial word to express a certain intensity of dislike based in a combination of rational and irrational responses.
I doubt you do not know this. I strongly suspect you're feigning some kind of moral high ground by latching onto a pointless semantic argument. Additionally, since my point was that I'm emphatically not some preachy, holier-than-thou, leftist stereotype who hugs bunnies and cries at double rainbows, I wonder if you're trying to be clever because you failed to grasp that.
However, the more important thing to point out here is that I am using a colloquial word to express a certain intensity of dislike based in a combination of rational and irrational responses.
I doubt you do not know this. I strongly suspect you're feigning some kind of moral high ground by latching onto a pointless semantic argument. Additionally, since my point was that I'm emphatically not some preachy, holier-than-thou, leftist stereotype who hugs bunnies and cries at double rainbows, I wonder if you're trying to be clever because you failed to grasp that.
demanding your boss quits over his personal political contributions...if i were him i'd tweet this back to them
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
What constitutes direct harm?
You know, something you aren't "supposed" to get mad at, but something that really, truly affects you.
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
And why do you think someone should be emotionally disinvested from something that affects the world generally even if not oneself exclusively?
There are times to be angry, and there are times not to be angry. I find that a lot of people on this website tries to find anything to create empathy. You included.
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
However, the more important thing to point out here is that I am using a colloquial word to express a certain intensity of dislike based in a combination of rational and irrational responses.
Based on my observations of your posts, most of which are recently, I don't think you are genuinely angry or hateful, you are faking the emotion to try to stir up other posters emotions even further. In other words, you are baiting for a reaction using your fake emotions.
Want proof of what I said? You gave the perfect example in your next paragraph.
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
I doubt you do not know this. I strongly suspect you're feigning some kind of moral high ground by latching onto a pointless semantic argument. Additionally, since my point was that I'm emphatically not some preachy, holier-than-thou, leftist stereotype who hugs bunnies and cries at double rainbows, I wonder if you're trying to be clever because you failed to grasp that.
In case you didn't know (but I'm sure you did, seeing that you are good with baiting people for a reaction), this multi-attack on my mental and emotional state is an attempt, however feeble for me, to get me to respond in a manner that is slightly more aggressive than you portrayed. I am not falling for that, as you can tell from the tone of these words you just read.
But that doesn't mean that somebody else won't "fall for the bait" as you have intended.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
The goal isn't to drive companies out of business anyway. In both cases, Barilla and Chik-fil-a ended up modifying their original positions.
Having the wrong opinion is not allowed!
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
Do you really think you're "tolerant" if you refuse to tolerate them?
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
The goal isn't to drive companies out of business anyway. In both cases, Barilla and Chik-fil-a ended up modifying their original positions.
Having the wrong opinion is not allowed!
[+]
Again: capitalism.
edit: *** walks money talks, and you're just upset that it's happening to the 1% now. Why are you such a tool?
edit: *** walks money talks, and you're just upset that it's happening to the 1% now. Why are you such a tool?
Jetackuu said: »
Again: capitalism.
edit: *** walks money talks, and you're just upset that it's happening to the 1% now. Why are you such a tool?
edit: *** walks money talks, and you're just upset that it's happening to the 1% now. Why are you such a tool?
Jetackuu said: »
Again: capitalism.
edit: *** walks money talks, and you're just upset that it's happening to the 1% now. Why are you such a tool?
edit: *** walks money talks, and you're just upset that it's happening to the 1% now. Why are you such a tool?
Not capitalism really. A caveat of capitalism isn't to put people out of business for having the wrong opinion. One can do that in a free market, however.
It's just a shame that people are bullied out of their support for traditional marriage. What is wrong with the notion of traditional marriage?
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Again: capitalism.
edit: *** walks money talks, and you're just upset that it's happening to the 1% now. Why are you such a tool?
edit: *** walks money talks, and you're just upset that it's happening to the 1% now. Why are you such a tool?
Not capitalism really. A caveat of capitalism isn't to put people out of business for having the wrong opinion. One can do that in a free market, however.
It's just a shame that people are bullied out of their support for traditional marriage. What is wrong with the notion of traditional marriage?
That's your opinion...
As far as your "it's just a shame" bit, no it's not a shame. What's wrong with the notion is that it's inaccurate, and bigoted. We shouldn't hold on to things that discriminate just because it's "tradition."
Jetackuu said: »
This is overall sad IMO.
Some of the LGBT community are going too far with their actions. They have developed this radical segment, consisting of GLAAD and HRC amongst others, which are supposed to promote tolerance and equality, but are intolerant of other peoples' views. They have become the "politically correct police" and come crashing down on anyone who doesn't support their views.
I stopped supporting GLAAD and HRC a long time ago. They are no better than the religious zealots that they protest.
[+]
Jetackuu said: »
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Again: capitalism.
edit: *** walks money talks, and you're just upset that it's happening to the 1% now. Why are you such a tool?
edit: *** walks money talks, and you're just upset that it's happening to the 1% now. Why are you such a tool?
Not capitalism really. A caveat of capitalism isn't to put people out of business for having the wrong opinion. One can do that in a free market, however.
It's just a shame that people are bullied out of their support for traditional marriage. What is wrong with the notion of traditional marriage?
That's your opinion...
As far as your "it's just a shame" bit, no it's not a shame. What's wrong with the notion is that it's inaccurate, and bigoted. We shouldn't hold on to things that discriminate just because it's "tradition."
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.