How dare you spend your money at the hate spewing bigot Chick-Fil-a!

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Par: You did call people hypocritical if they boycott one company based on its actions, but don't studiously research every other company that they do business with. That's at least a little insulting.

Truth is, most of us don't have time for that. But when someone else does the research for us and gives us the info, well, then you have to make a choice.

Ok then I apologize. That wasn't my intention but can no one concede that if you pick and choose a massive stance on a subject while ignoring others regardless of your lack of research or ignorance, there is a bit of hypocrisy involved.

Farscry wrote:

This is why I'm not going to call out someone as a hypocrite if they are against something but don't do "enough" to oppose it. Case in point, your friend who strongly opposes fracking but needed a decent job to care for their family. Does that action make them a hypocrite? Well, technically yes, but by that standard we're all hypocrites. ;)

This is all I was trying to say

PAR

par wrote:

Ok then I apologize. That wasn't my intention but can no one concede that if you pick and choose a massive stance on a subject while ignoring others regardless of your lack of research or ignorance, there is a bit of hypocrisy involved.

I certainly don't concede it. It seems to me you're saying "How dare you not act on information you don't have." If I don't have the info, how can I ignore it? Additionally, I don't think not eating at Chick-Fil-A is such a massive stance. It's about the laziest form of activism there is, apart from outraged Facebook posts.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Truth is, most of us don't have time for that. But when someone else does the research for us and gives us the info, well, then you have to make a choice.

You're assuming that an advocacy group is giving you the full story. One of the things I've noticed after posting here and in other places on the internet on a variety of issues is that advocacy groups -left or right- frequently omit significant facts in their presentations. I've posted blog articles or advocacy pieces before on the internet and had better informed people on the other side of the issue poke holes in them.

You have to research fully and listen to the other side occasionally, because sometimes the other side raises fair points. Sometimes the advocacy group is painting a fair picture, sometimes it's not. Sometimes after looking at an issue, I think both sides are wrong from my perspective. You can't outsource your political thinking.

I heard that the meat that Chik Fil A uses is actually gay people.

par wrote:

Where am I putting any of you down? Where am I bashing? I am talking about the issue and just bringing up what I think is a possible hypocritical stance. I am not taking this to a personal level whereas people who don't like what Im saying here are. I have yet to judge but am being judged. Isn't this what you guys are fighting for?

Actually, I wasn't referring to you, just using "you" in the general sense. Again, my point is that the whole avenue of argument is just a diversion and a pointless one. The end conclusion (and just to be specific, not one you yourself have explicitly drawn) is this "If you boycott something over an issue that is important to you, you are a bad person (there is no positive connotation of calling someone hypocrite) unless you boycott everything. So damned if you do, damned if you don't! I win!"

It's pointless unless the goal is simply to dismiss someone through convoluted ad hominem.

That explains why it's so juicy.

Wow, I never meant for my posts to come across as such. I am now getting hate filled PMs because I have an opinion about something that doesn't quite match what others believe

Maybe I worded it wrong (which I have gone back and actually reread and don't believe that I did to such an extent as to be labeled a hater) but my only point was that in order to willingly live in a 1st world country you must be a bit hypocritical and pick your battles where you can.

Ignorance and the conscious decision to totally believe in other's "research" on selective entities is not an excuse to attack someone because they propose you might be a little hypocritical. Being selective in your actions and ignoring any possible chance that you might unwittingly be countermanding your own ideals because you DON'T boycott someone who actively supports something you dont believe in IS hypocrisy.

  1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
  2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
  3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

All I ever did was try and start a conversation about that. Again I am sorry you all now believe I am a racist, gay-hating, war-mongering Marxist Hitler follower who eats baby heads and support giraffe pedophilia.

PAR

par wrote:
Farscry wrote:

This is why I'm not going to call out someone as a hypocrite if they are against something but don't do "enough" to oppose it. Case in point, your friend who strongly opposes fracking but needed a decent job to care for their family. Does that action make them a hypocrite? Well, technically yes, but by that standard we're all hypocrites. ;)

This is all I was trying to say :(

I'm going to say it doesn't make them a hypocrite. If I oppose fracking because I don't think the lower price for fuel is worth the risks, it doesn't make me a hypocrite to take that job, unless maybe I'm the only person in the world who can do that job. If I'm opposed to fracking over the risks to humans and not because I believe in a 'spirit of the earth', then that job doesn't require me to directly victimize anyone in the execution of my duties.

I think the problem is that this issue of boycotts and activism is being presented as you either MUST boycott or you MUST NOT. What about a third category, things that are not blameless so they don't fall into the MUST NOT category, but they're not so horrible that they fall into the MUST category either? Why can't there be a CAN category? And most people are not monks sworn to their causes--we're all humans who are entitled to be a little selfish, I feel. So if I pick one cause from the CAN category to boycott but not another, that doesn't make me a hypocrite. That makes me a human who is allowed to find a balance between my own needs and the needs of others.

Um, par, if you're using those definitions to call us hypocritical, then yes, you deserve some backlash.

The original post of any thread sets the tone. Case in point.