Molly Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 Okay, fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 I see a lot of people turning this into a gun issue. Don't get me wrong; I will never own one and I'm in favor of strict gun laws. (I firmly believe there is no situation that ends with "And that's a reasonable explanation for why a private citizen needs an AK-47.") However, millions of responsible people own them and manage not to massacre a theater full of people. This is absolutely not a gun issue, it's a "some taint woke up one day and said to himself 'I'm going to go where there are a lot of people and kill as many of them as I can'" issue. It's so easy to blow things up when this is the sole result of one crackpot. My thoughts are with those people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted July 20, 2012 Report Share Posted July 20, 2012 Well put Dan. Whilst there can be arguements made that a murderer like this can increase their damage through ownership of certain weapons for me the strongest arguments for gun control remain the everyday incidents and tragedies resulting from their proliferation, not the lone actions of a madman. I also see attempts being made to shift the conversation toward the corrupting influence of films and other media, and I hope those ideas are met with the scorn they deserve. This was a isolated incident that resulted from the warped mind of one man. I hope this is kept low-profile and the community is allowed to support and heal itself in private. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 So, more details: Apparently he set a timer to start blaring loud techno music in his apartment right before midnight in order to incite a noise complaint from the police. He also booby-trapped his apartment with explosives so that when the police broke in, a huge explosion would go off and the police and firefighters would all be diverted well away from the theater when he started shooting. On top of that, he dyed his hair like the Joker's. Holy fuck, this guy's literally a wannabe super-villain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc20willsave Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 The bastard is going to try very badly to pull a "the movies made me do it" defense for an insanity plea. From the reports I've seen, he's the one who brought the Joker comparison to light. Considering the Joker has always been depicted with Green Hair and he dyed his hair red, it's reaching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 That's fine. The fact that he booby trapped his apartment really hurts any insanity arguement. Clearly thought out and premeditated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxPower Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 If he died his hair red, I say we blame Ronald McDonald. Seriously though, I got really upset to see the anti gun people jump on this within hours to further their agenda. Don't get me wrong, I'm anti guns, but just show some respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venneh Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Turns out the motherfucker bought, over the last two months, 6,300 rounds of ammunition. In slightly happier news, the NCAA and Big Ten pretty much threw the book at Penn State in terms of their punishment for the Sandusky molestings, and a significant portion of the fines/lost funding are going to protecting children from abuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James D. Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 I really need to say something that's been bugging me ever since this Chick-Fil-A controversy started. I'm sorry, but I am still failing to see the reasoning behind calling them a "hate group". Has Chick-Fil-A ever kicked someone out of their establishment and refused them service for their sexual preference? I've never seen it happen. Not once. Never. If they had done that, then I'd be right there with the Jim Henson page on Facebook saying I'll never ever eat there again. And then, I think that phrase would be warranted. But, do we really want to foster a society where people actively shun one another simply because they hold different beliefs than oneself? I'm absolutely 100% in favor of gay marriage in this country (and I would hope I've never made that a secret here), but all this shows me is a huge amount of people being intolerant of another group's beliefs to the point of ad hominem attacks. The family that owns the restaurant chain holds a belief in something, and while I vehemently disagree with it, I will defend to the death their right to have it. I'm not going to call them a "hate group" because they have done nothing to warrant that phrase. The KKK is a hate group. The New Black Panthers are a hate group. If you are going to boycott Chick-Fil-A, then you better boycott any Muslim-owned restaurants or stores since the Koran outright states that women are inferior to men. On a personal level, I am a big fan of Rise Against and other liberal/far left-wing bands, and I can't stand their politics. It doesn't mean I'm going to stop listening to their music. Same thing with this website. I think it's safe to say the majority of people who post on these forums are on the liberal side. Which is fine. It goes back to my original point that you are entitled to your belief system. That is the whole point of the f'n Bill of Rights! I'm obviously not going to stop posting here just because you guys, most of whom I consider good friends, have different opinions than me. My point in all this is, if you want to boycott them, fine. That's your right. But if you start boycotting everyone who believes in something different than you, you are really going to limit your economic and social options. And I don't think it's right to call people a "hate group" just because they have different religious beliefs than you. That's my take on this. Feel free to disagree. It's your right, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venneh Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 As I understand it, the logic behind the boycott/calling Chick-Fil-A a hate group stems from their substantial corporate donations (about $2 mil/year) to some of the nastier anti-gay groups (Exodus International, Focus on the Family, Family and Marriage Legacy Fund) that the Southern Poverty Law Center says are on the same level as the KKK in their activities (how accurate that is, I'm not sure), and their main charitable arm (WinShape Foundation) is strongly anti-gay, as in will refuse services if you're homosexual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 I agree with everything James said, absolutely, 100%. Ditto for everything. I constantly get sick of people on throwing the word "hateful" or "intolerant" whenever they find someone who disagrees with their views. If you label everyone who simply holds a difference of opinion on moral issues to be "hateful," you're being the intolerant one. If there's demonstrated and proven discriminatory acts shown by the company, then that's one thing. But most of the people who've jumped on Twitter over the last week calling out Chick-Fil-A as being hateful and evil are responding to that comment made by the company's president, which doesn't constitute hate speech. Hell, the Boston mayor wants to literally ban the restaurants from the city based on discrimination that doesn't technically exist. Does he also intend to ban churches and mosques, both of which endorse the exact same message? Now, once again, if it's an issue of where the money's going, and it turns out that the company is literally supporting harmful acts of discrimination (as in actual illegal acts, not the kind of thing that's legally supported under freedom of speech and the like), then that's something worth fighting over. As it is, though, all the craziness is just as unnecessary as when far-right weirdos freaked out about a rainbow oreo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Also, their sandwiches are shit. So there's that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James D. Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Also, their sandwiches are shit. So there's that. I would have words with thee, sir. Their sandwiches are awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Pistols at dawn, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James D. Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Indeed. At ten paces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Also, their sandwiches are shit. So there's that. I would have words with thee, sir. Their sandwiches are awesome. I concur with the good Sir Deaux. You guys have your duely fun. I'll watch from the side while eating a chicken sandwich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Why in the fuck do the opinions of the chicken restaurant and the Muppets matter on political issues again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuaveStar Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Why in the fuck do the opinions of the chicken restaurant and the Muppets matter on political issues again? Because with any luck, Kermit the Frog will be running for office in 2016. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Why in the fuck do the opinions of the chicken restaurant and the Muppets matter on political issues again? Because with any luck, Kermit the Frog will be running for office in 2016. I would vote for him SO HARD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightWing Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 I'll buy THAT for a dollar! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 You can ban companies for personal reasons without ever really expecting to make a difference. I know a lot of people who won't buy or use Nestle. Problem is that if you go too far back into any product chain you're bound to find something horrible. Personally I love shopping at Primark because they have the highest quantity of children's tears per garment sewn. People can boycott who they like, they just shouldn't expect to get anywhere with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc20willsave Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 I'm not strictly boycotting the place. I know people who are feverently supporting doing this. I just don't eat there as often now which used to be quite a bit. Besides, if I want fried chicken, I have a KFC nearby or I can make it myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuaveStar Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Scotland is set to become the first part of the UK to introduce gay marriage after the SNP government announced plans to make the change. Scottish ministers confirmed they would bring forward a bill on the issue. Political leaders, equality groups and others support gay marriage, but it is strongly opposed by the Catholic Church and Church of Scotland. The announcement was made in the wake of a government consultation which produced a massive response. Same-sex couples in Scotland currently have the option to enter into civil partnerships and the Holyrood government has insisted no part of the religious community would be forced to hold same-sex weddings in churches. Despite opposition by the big religions, faith groups, including the United Reformed Church, the Quakers, Buddhists and the Pagan Federation back gay marriage. The issue also caused a split in the SNP, after a parliamentary motion tabled by party MSP John Mason, stating no person or organisation should be forced to be involved in or to approve of same-sex marriage, led to accusations by some of his colleagues that his actions encouraged discrimination. Gordon Wilson, a former SNP leader, has also warned plans for same-sex marriage could "alienate" people considering voting for independence in the 2014 referendum. Civil partnerships in Scotland offer the same legal treatment as marriage in areas such as inheritance, pensions provision, life assurance, child maintenance, next of kin and immigration rights, but are still seen as distinct from marriage. A man and a woman can opt for a religious or civil marriage ceremony, whereas a same-sex partnership is an exclusively civil procedure. The UK government, which is consulting on changing the status of civil ceremonies to allow gay and lesbian couples in England and Wales to get married, wants to make the change by 2015. The Scottish government's decision came on the same day that the partner of the late Labour MP David Cairns said anti-gay remarks by the new Archbishop of Glasgow added to his "grief and pain". Dermot Kehoe spoke after it emerged Philip Tartaglia appeared to link the death of Mr Cairns to his sexuality. Mr Cairns, who was Labour MP for Inverclyde and a former Catholic priest, died at the age of 44 in May last year after suffering from acute pancreatitis. http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-18981287 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Robinson Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venneh Posted August 5, 2012 Report Share Posted August 5, 2012 There's been a mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wi. Seven people are dead. Twenty to thirty are injured. It was a hostage situation with children, but at least one shooter has been taken down (there are possibly more. This is the last place I would've expected something like this to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.