"Arturo Fuente Anejo. My new favorite.
Also, I'm a fan of the Padrón 1964 Anniversary"
Calling someone out for complete ridiculousness
Gents,
I have an issue on my hands that I don't know how to handle with class. Let's dive in.
As many of you remember, Chick-Fil-A was a trending theme over the summer. Dan Cathy (the COO of Chick-Fil-A) made some questionable remarks about gay people and gay marriage. Many on the left reacted quite negatively and many on the right stood up for his First Amendment rights.
Fast forward three months. The issue is still brewing in the only place it can survive- academia. I'm on a college campus and there are some students within student government who want to sit down with the ownership of the local Chick-Fil-A and they have some demands. They want to present a letter to the ownership, and get them to sign it, that calls for Dan Cathy to apologize for his remarks, retract his remarks, and promise to stop funding anti-gay "hate groups" (I'm not saying Chick-Fil-A is completely innocent but they aren't as bad as some people make them out to be). They are also demanding that a "pride" flag be placed in the Chick-Fil-A store.
As far as I'm concerned the issue over Dan Cathy's remarks are a First Amendment issue. If this case were to go to court the petitioners would get laughed out. Thus, I think their demands are not only completely unrealistic, I think they should be called out on them. I understand that they are offended but there is absolutely no reason they should demand what they are demanding. How can I politely point out the problem here without sounding like a homophobe? I think they need to be taken down a notch. How can I put them in their place with class?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by JonEdanger on -
I know you think you know what you're talking about. That's what scares me.
-
-
Permalink Reply by LShieldes on
-
No, just because there is a definition of religion, does not make it that there is a true or real religion. Same with there being a definition of a fairy princess, but not a real fairy princess.
-
Permalink Reply by Liam S. on -
It proves no such thing. A discussion about a fake dragon does not prove there is a real dragon. We just have a working definition we commonly accept for what such a thing *would* be. Not that it necessarily is.
Just so with religion. We have a definition, and those things that meet the definition are called religion - regardless of their merits or truth. If you want to argue that there are real religions, go right ahead - I'll conceded there are hundreds of them. If you want to argue that that implies any one (or any number of them) are true, there is no evidence in this argument to support that.
-
Permalink Reply by Ken D Books on -
Like I said previously, you're confusing reality with fantasy.
-
Permalink Reply by JonEdanger on
-
Let me guess: You've consulted the voices in your head and they agree with you.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Rick Shelton on -
Sorry we're headed down this road and this isn't going to help but:
Ken,
How do you know your religion is the "real" religion? What makes you right when there are so many who disagree with you? There have been many many religions throughout history so what makes you believe that yours is the correct one?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Liam S. on
-
And like I said previously - that the fantasy exists, does not prove anything about reality. A fake something, does not necessitate a real something - the fantasy can exist on its own.
You simply cannot make the logical deduction you are trying to make. It is based on a flawed premise.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Ken D Books on
-
You obviously don't know the definition of counterfeit. The word I used was counterfeit. You cannot have a counterfeit unless there is a real.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Rick Shelton on
-
"The word I used was counterfeit."
Only partially correct, you also used the term "false"; as in if there is a false then there is a true, which is not correct and that is where your error lies. There are a lot of falsities that do not necessitate a truth.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Liam S. on
-
1. You said both false, and counterfeit. They are not synonyms, and should be treated differently.
2. You are making the claim that something is counterfeit - rather than simply fantasy, that is an assertion, not a logical deduction. Stating something to be a counterfeit does not make it so, nor can that be used to assert the real.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Rick Shelton on
-
Liam,
I was going to bring up simple deductive logic (re: "Modus Ponens") but I don't know if he could follow the argument.
-
Latest Activity
Silviu Ilyevich Tulbya commented on Leif Gunnar Selberg's blog post should I help younger brother become smoker?"I don't mean to test your pride, but, what do you mean? You are a "proud" smoker?
I'll tell you what I see every day. Old guys, teens, x-gens, coming into where I work as a cashier, spending $8.00+ a pack on something that 1.…"
Silviu Ilyevich Tulbya replied to Silviu Ilyevich Tulbya's discussion My Twenties"David,
I find it interesting that you say I'm average. Most people have family friends that have some connections. I don't. Some have parents that went to college to be able to guide. My parents barely speak English. Others have traveled…"
Silviu Ilyevich Tulbya replied to Silviu Ilyevich Tulbya's discussion My Twenties"Getting a job is also why I switched from Architecture to a Business degree. Thanks for the input"
David R Marino Sr commented on Brad Bortz's group Cigars, Cigars, Cigars"Great for after dinner, Montecristo No. 5"
Cigars, Cigars, Cigars
I've just joined Manliness and don't see a group dedicated to cigar aficionados.Any cigar smokers out there? Let's share experiences, nice smokes, etc.Looking forward to hearing from all of you!See More
Dakota Caraway replied to James!'s discussion Best Manly Insults"Even though it's from an Adam Sandler movie, an AWESOME insult."
© 2013 Created by Brett McKay.
Powered by
