Current Events

Re: Chicago mayor owned on Chick-fil-A

vive la insurrection — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 07:42:14 GMT

OK I got swarmed by activists today.

Suffice to say, activists are and always have been some of the more annoying people to me. It really is a resort of a bored and leisurely classed scoundrel to care about a fucking chicken place. If I were 4 years younger I would have probably blown a gasket, hoisted the black flag, and ended up in county; and after the bail enjoyed meal after meal there out of shear spite - instead of silently and gently pushing one of the multiple activists out of my way who were insistent on blocking my path, so I could finish my luch alone and in peace and quiet by the lake.

Either way, it's still very annoying, and will probably be fashionable until the election season is over.

Re: Chicago mayor owned on Chick-fil-A

Lady Saiga — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 22:53:26 GMT

@scottws: The age and/or popularity of a belief do not validate or invalidate it. Since "jerk" has no particularly precise definition, I use it here to mean "person who, against the views of Lady Saiga, advocates rights for one group but not another", but in fact I didn't say the guy WAS a jerk, only that my money would enable him to be one publicly. As a matter of fact, in the original article, I think the statement was "pro-traditional family", not "anti-gay marriage", and so I don't think he WAS being a jerk. Just honest.

Re: Chicago mayor owned on Chick-fil-A

Bert — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 21:55:51 GMT

Maybe Hans Hoppe himself can sign on this forum with the sig Hans Hoppe Isn't Homosexual with the Cosby like picture of himself.

Re: Chicago mayor owned on Chick-fil-A

vive la insurrection — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 16:01:24 GMT

bonus points if you use this image as your avatar

Or is that more appropriate to Hans Hoppe is not Bill Cosby?

Re: Chicago mayor owned on Chick-fil-A

vive la insurrection — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:49:10 GMT

Hans Hoppe isn't homosexual.

Please please please somebody use this as their sig. I may have to if no one else will.

Re: Chicago mayor owned on Chick-fil-A

BiPolarMoment — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:42:56 GMT

I think avoiding companies that contribute to causes or with CEOs that hold opinions you disagree with would be nigh on impossible. Probably moreso for people on this forum.

Who funds the anti-nuclear lobby? Who funds the recycle-at-all-costs-even-when-it-doesn't-make-sense campaigns? Who (outside the military industrial complex) funds activist foreign policy? Who lobbies for the drug war?

I imagine a lot of people need to start boycotting some of their favorite products.

Re: Chicago mayor owned on Chick-fil-A

Turin — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 12:23:06 GMT

My post was poorly worded I know and did not intend to claim Hoppe was homosexual but was giving him credit for the time prefrence argument and by bread I mean the past tense world for procreate not the consumable food item.

Re: Chicago mayor owned on Chick-fil-A

Andris Birkmanis — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 14:39:45 GMT

Bert, how the fuck can a fast food restaurant have a stance at all? Aren't you a methodological individualist? ;)

Re: Chicago mayor owned on Chick-fil-A

bloomj31 — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 03:15:11 GMT

They're actually from Atlanta, my hometown.

The one by my house was insanely busy/crowded today.

I know I'll continue eating there. But obviously I'm biased.

Re: Chicago mayor owned on Chick-fil-A

Bert — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 02:40:40 GMT

Re: Chicago mayor owned on Chick-fil-A

Cortes — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 02:22:17 GMT

STRAIGHT PUMPERNICKEL ONLY >:O

Re: Chicago mayor owned on Chick-fil-A

John Ess — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 21:49:25 GMT

Hans Hoppe isn't homosexual. And if there is anyone who loves bread, it is Hans Hoppe.

Re: Chicago mayor owned on Chick-fil-A

Turin — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 21:01:32 GMT

The claim "My guess is if they are down South, and that is the majority of their business they can last with such comments until the reactionary elements down south get bred out to a significant degree and they are forced to adopt a more progressive language." is rather moot. I mean how can non-procreative homosexuals out bread pro-natalist rednecks in the south or the US for that matter? If anything as short timeprefence homosexuals (ala Hans Herman Hoppe) will be out bread by the pronatalists southern conservatives.

Re: Chicago mayor owned on Chick-fil-A

Cortes — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 20:30:56 GMT

This brings to mind the debate on a businesses' right to discriminate. (Well, it's not much of a 'debate', since anybody brave enough to advocate it is quickly dehumanized into a white-hooded cross burning troglodtye ogre)

Many progressive types who frequently entertain utilitarian social planning schemes tend to associate states rights (here they are partially right, but not in ways they necessarily understand) and decentralization as leading to environments of bigotry where the racist majority would quickly rise to oppress gays, blacks, [insert minority here].

It is of their firm opinion that a society full of bigoted behavior which develops to the extent of systematic oppression a la Jim Crow South, (this requires being totally oblivious to irony), can only arise in societies of total voluntary association where employers and businesses are free to discriminate. If not that, they argue that such environments promote and facilitate instituonalized bigotry.

If you are a minority, the argument goes, (say, living in a rural Southern community) your boycotts and protests will do nothing to avert the prejudices of the majority. You are helpless, powerless, because an unregulated society of voluntary association will end up oppressing you. Therefore, a progressive benevolent elite must lay down the law and regulate the business environment to prevent such majorities from oppressing the few.

The irony of such egalitarianism, that societies of institutional bigotry can only be perpetuated and enforced through government, and that such regulations manufacture new prejudices where there previously were none by dividing society and pitting groups against one another, creating new favored elites to replace the old, is entirely lost on them.

They seem to believe the racist South simply arose from a vacuum, that left to their own devices people will simply turn into batshit racists on their own, certainly requiring no legislated Jim Crow education and indoctrination of government enforced apartheid to instill such beliefs...

But, they say, all it takes is to bring the right minds to power, and we can plan and regulate racism and homophobia away, or at least keep it in check, where in a freer society it would run rampant...

This argument is very powerful and convincing to your college demographic (and many older Baby Boomer liberal types). It is a classic chicken- and- egg fallacy, since they are never able to prove that insitutional bigotry was the result of free unregulated association.

For many however, this is unneccessary, and they might even accept the fact that government did in fact prop up and enforce such bigotry. However, they still insist that 'we cannot go back' and remove such controls since the racists would simply take over once more. This is similar circular reasoning for opponents of non-intervention and pulling troops out of Afghanistan/Iraq/[insert latest nation here].

Very tough to shake people out of this mindset.

Re: Chicago mayor owned on Chick-fil-A

John Ess — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:40:20 GMT

"Where is the objective foundation that a preference for heterosexual marriage is factually stupid"

It is not a preference for two reasons: (1) people can prefer heterosexual marriage, while allowing gay marriage for others. In the same way they get married to a woman, while not caring if there are gay people. Or having a baby, but supporting the right to an abortion.

And (2) Christian views are not preferences, but statements that claim to be facts without choice being involved. The word 'heresy' comes from the word for preference or choice (αἵρεσις or aresis), and it is right out in any organized religion.

We're talking about a claim to a fact. IE: God is angered by untraditional marriage. Therefore he is not saying that is, to him at least, subjective. He is saying it is objective that a man in the sky is angry at this country for redefining marriage. You've seen the picture of the huge Jesus looking down on the earth with a tear in his eye.