• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case[W:426, 1367]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

no you don't. this is a delusion that you think they need your 10 dollars.
they don't even factor that into the profit/loss calculations.

again you use the because i say so argument.

again it sin't an argument and it is pretty much meaningless.
he doesn't have to convince you of anything. you are free to believe whatever fantasy you want.

reality though dictates otherwise.

I'm a little fascinated by the desperation you and Ikari have employed to convince me that I have zero impact.

Try this on: You and Ikari have zero impact on how I measure my own impact.

See how that works?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

It's a description (accurate) of your posting and behavior. If you don't like it, stop acting that way.

This might shock you, but your interpretation of what is "accurate" and your admonishment as an ineffective way to alter my posting and behavior both strike me as manure. Only less useful.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

I'm a little fascinated by the desperation you and Ikari have employed to convince me that I have zero impact.

Try this on: You and Ikari have zero impact on how I measure my own impact.

See how that works?

Obviously we have zero impact on your delusion of grandure. You seemingly do not want to see or understand the fundamental. There is absolutely no metric you can point to that demonstrates your 1*10^-7% effect has had any affect on the aggregate system. The CEO of the company has not reduced his contributions to those organizations you dislike by .0000001%, if you gave Chick-fil-A your 10 dollars, he wouldn't increase his contributions by .0000001%. There is no policy change, no affect on its 9 billion in revenue, the world isn't "more livable" because you don't eat a chicken sandwich. It is an absurd statement to make when, in fact, you are do nothing to make it more "livable". Eating/not eating a chicken sandwich has no effect on the "livability" of the world. That's just a fact.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

That's fine, you aren't buying from them on principle. Fine and dandy. I'm not out to change your mind or make you eat at Chick-fil-A.

What I was contending was your statement that you are making the place more livable through your choice not to eat at Chick-fil-A, that's delusion. Nothing is better because of it, nothing is more livable because of it. Unless you do more than not eat a chicken sandwich, you are doing nothing.

I do.

Your 10 dollars is like 0.0000001% of their yearly revenue. You're so far away from having any affect on the system what so ever. You're making an "itty bitty difference". No, not even that. You are at zero difference. Chick-fil-A doesn't even know you exist, your 10 dollars is meaningless to them in the face of more than 9 billion in revenue. If you want to make a difference, if you want to make things more "livable", you have to do more than not eat a chicken sandwich. I'm just educating you to reality, so we can forgo silly little statements based in delusions of grandure such as "you're making the world more livable".

lol

Now multiple that ten dollars by all the meals I will eat over my lifetime. Add to that ten dollars multiplied by all the people I convince not to eat at Chick-fil-A multiplied by all the meals those people will eat over their lifetimes. Add to that the revenue effect of the campaigns we ran in Denver metro. I had and continue to have an effect. Chick-fil-A is still a profitable and successful company, but you're distorting reality because you don't like my opinions. Let me try to find somebody who cares.

That sandwich place doesn't matter to me very much. I'm much more active in opposing Walmart. Again, I'm not going to put them out of business, but I have more than "zero impact".
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

And gays don't have the right to infringe on others religious rights. See how that works>


I would think common sense would do that. As I sad several states HAVE tried to do so, but Big Gay shouted them down.

Ah, that's what I was waiting for. Yes, gay people absolutely have the right to infringe on other people's religious rights. See the entire civil rights movement.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

I do.



Now multiple that ten dollars by all the meals I will eat over my lifetime. Add to that ten dollars multiplied by all the people I convince not to eat at Chick-fil-A multiplied by all the meals those people will eat over their lifetimes. Add to that the revenue effect of the campaigns we ran in Denver metro. I had and continue to have an effect. Chick-fil-A is still a profitable and successful company, but you're distorting reality because you don't like my opinions. Let me try to find somebody who cares.

That sandwich place doesn't matter to me very much. I'm much more active in opposing Walmart. Again, I'm not going to put them out of business, but I have more than "zero impact".

No. You have zero impact. For every ripple you create there's someone on the other side who goes out of his/her way to patronize Chick-Fil-A just because they know some people won't. Ditto Wal-Mart.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Like I said, 1*10^-7% will not affect the overall system at all. I understand doing things on principle, I am not unsympathetic towards such ends. But don't delude yourself into thinking that you're making the world "more livable" at .0000001%; you're not.

You've said that over and over again. It means as much to me now as the first time you posted it.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

you should get your own bigotry under control before telling other people what to do.
SOrry i support a free society where people are allowed to support or not support whatever causes that they want.

I'm sorry you support discrimination against gay people.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

I do.



Now multiple that ten dollars by all the meals I will eat over my lifetime. Add to that ten dollars multiplied by all the people I convince not to eat at Chick-fil-A multiplied by all the meals those people will eat over their lifetimes. Add to that the revenue effect of the campaigns we ran in Denver metro. I had and continue to have an effect. Chick-fil-A is still a profitable and successful company, but you're distorting reality because you don't like my opinions. Let me try to find somebody who cares.

That sandwich place doesn't matter to me very much. I'm much more active in opposing Walmart. Again, I'm not going to put them out of business, but I have more than "zero impact".

How many meals do you eat out in a year? How much does Chick-fil-A's revenue grow per year?

I'm not distorting reality, I'm representing it. People always want to feel that their principles matter some how, and if they just do X then they are doing things to make the world better. But unless it elicits actual change, unless there is some metric that can be pointed to that has any amount of statistical significance, then nothing has been done. It's just a feel-good delusion put up so that one can believe they are doing something when they are not. It's an excuse to not do something in reality.

You have zero impact, and you have absolutely no metric, no measurable quantity, no statistic to back up your claim that you have anything above a zero impact. There is no practical change, no policy change, no contribution change from your inactivity of patronizing Chick-fil-A or WalMart. It's vaporware, it's delusions of grandure.

You've said that over and over again. It means as much to me now as the first time you posted it.

I don't suspect it means anything to you. You don't want to recognize reality. That's how delusions of grandure work.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Ah, that's what I was waiting for. Yes, gay people absolutely have the right to infringe on other people's religious rights. See the entire civil rights movement.

sorry but that statment is factually not true . ..
civil rights doesn't support your claim either, civil rights doesnt give anybody the right to infringe on other peoples rights....that is simply not how rights work...

i dont know what you are trying to say but what you said is factually wrong
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Obviously we have zero impact on your delusion of grandure.

You finally got it.

You seemingly do not want to see or understand the fundamental. There is absolutely no metric you can point to that demonstrates your 1*10^-7% effect has had any affect on the aggregate system. The CEO of the company has not reduced his contributions to those organizations you dislike by .0000001%, if you gave Chick-fil-A your 10 dollars, he wouldn't increase his contributions by .0000001%. There is no policy change, no affect on its 9 billion in revenue, the world isn't "more livable" because you don't eat a chicken sandwich. It is an absurd statement to make when, in fact, you are do nothing to make it more "livable". Eating/not eating a chicken sandwich has no effect on the "livability" of the world. That's just a fact.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

No. You have zero impact. For every ripple you create there's someone on the other side who goes out of his/her way to patronize Chick-Fil-A just because they know some people won't. Ditto Wal-Mart.

You just described an impact.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

When and how did they try to do that?

never lol not in this case anyway
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

This case. Hello.

gays tried to infringe on the rights of others? LMAO
again how?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

gays tried to infringe on the rights of others? LMAO
again how?
are you intentional being this obtuse? I hope so. A gay couple asked a baker to bake them a wedding cake - he refused based on his first amendment religious rights. They filed complaints and went to court forcing him to proceed all the way up to the Supreme Court That's infringement.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

are you intentional being this obtuse? I hope so. A gay couple asked a baker to bake them a wedding cake
he refused based on his first amendment religious rights. They filed complaints and went to court forcing him to proceed all the way up to the Supreme Court That's infringement.

yes thats how our justice system works that is not infringement in any way because they followed the law. if they werent following the law this goes NOWHERE.
wow thanks for proving yourself factually wrong. are you american?

Another one of your false claims completely destroyed and proven wrong LMAO

there was ZERO infringement her by the gay couple . . ZERO
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

It is what it is. I find it interesting how SCOTUS seems to be tailoring their rulings to be as narrow as possible lately, setting it up for more cases later. Sometimes it makes sense, other times,. like here, not so much. I do not see what they gain by leaving the question open.

Edit: For some reason the site is running really slow today, and as I was waiting for the page to load back in, oh so slowly, after my post I thought that maybe the reason is to get agreement among the members. Let's agree to rule this way, but make it as narrow as possible, kinda thing. That is pure speculation based on no evidence(which hypocritical me usually bitches when people do), but I suppose is possible.
A ruling is suppose to be for only the case in question. Judges are not suppose to make law, of which a broad ruling might do.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

How many meals do you eat out in a year? How much does Chick-fil-A's revenue grow per year?

I'm not distorting reality, I'm representing it. People always want to feel that their principles matter some how, and if they just do X then they are doing things to make the world better. But unless it elicits actual change, unless there is some metric that can be pointed to that has any amount of statistical significance, then nothing has been done. It's just a feel-good delusion put up so that one can believe they are doing something when they are not. It's an excuse to not do something in reality.

You have zero impact, and you have absolutely no metric, no measurable quantity, no statistic to back up your claim that you have anything above a zero impact. There is no practical change, no policy change, no contribution change from your inactivity of patronizing Chick-fil-A or WalMart. It's vaporware, it's delusions of grandure.



I don't suspect it means anything to you. You don't want to recognize reality. That's how delusions of grandure work.

The more you tell me that my contribution is limited to not eating at Chick-fil-A the more you defeat your own purpose.
 
Back
Top Bottom