Ugh, Embarrassed this Douche is on "My side" (Chik-fil-a)

[Condescending Robot]

So, once again, people who "just don't want to see the poor cashiers yelled at" and "don't want to politicize chicken" are quickly revealed as being willing to defend the Family Research Council, lie about the exact issue that sparked the entire situation, and basically go to bat for homophobes up to and including people who want to exterminate gays as a class.

Tell me again how extreme and unreasonable some guy who used strong language in a restaurant is?

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

The fucking corporation donated its money, not the CEO personally, which is the whole motherfucking reason this is an issue now, you lying sack of shit.

I'm guessing you don't really have much of a problem with the "kill the gays" bill, either.

Bingo. You got it. The corporation did it!!! Now, it's just a small step to understanding that the employees of that corporation are guilty of nothing but working for a living. Rein in your hate and get your head out of your ass and this may still work out.

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

Screenshots of the federally submitted lobbying report are in the article, you dumbfuck.

i cant see what the document says, or even what the document is, since I'm out of town and on my iPhone. The resolution is terrible.

I politely asked you for a cite, since I didn't see anything in the article other than the author's assertion. Your response to my request was to copy and paste the same assertion, while failing to mention any relevant wording contained within the scanned document. When asked to clarify, you called me a dumbfuck.

Maybe you could try again, acting like a halfway decent person this time.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

Maybe you could try again, acting like a halfway decent person this time.

I'll go out and get a job converting chicken sandwiches into dead gay people so that I meet with your moral approval.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

They didn't lobby to remove the part of the resolution that labeled homosexuality a right, they lobbied to blanketly vote against the resolution condemning the murder of homosexuals. Their actions do not support their claims and why you would ever give them such an extraordinary benefit of the doubt is beyond me.

There's no benefit of the doubt being given here. There's nothing to doubt.

You're right--they lobbied to reject the resolution. I didn't say otherwise. They also stated their reasons for rejecting it. Their stated reason is, the resolution calls homosexuality a right. That is what they don't like about the resolution. So, they said, it should be rejected. From this we have no reason to conclude they are for the execution of homosexuals. If there were a resolution extending the right to marry to homosexual couples, and also claiming that everyone has a right to peanut butter sandwiches every day, and if you were to reject that resolution, should I then conclude you are anti-SSM?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

We're talking about working for CFA, not KKK. The problem is that you're consumed by hate, and, like Adam Smith, you are showering that hate on innocent people. If you have a problem with CFA, it's with the management, not the restaurant employees.

Well said.

[Morgenstern]

n/m getting nowhere.

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

I'll go out and get a job converting chicken sandwiches into dead gay people so that I meet with your moral approval.

You're the worst kind of moron.

I got into a discussion about this with someone on a board I moderate. I claimed the same thing you did, and the other person told me I was lying & pointed me to an article written by a FRC spokesperson that said what Frylock did earlier. If you have some kind of citation that shows the FRC rep is lying, I would love to lob it back at the guy on the other board. I am firmly against Chick-fil-A, very much for gay marriage, and have argued that side on this board numerous times.

So, I'm asking you for the cite again for the 4th time. Just tell me what the doc is and what it says, and you can go back to frothing at the mouth.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

n/m getting nowhere.

On the one hand, they want to kill me.
On the other hand, I don't like that.

Since we both commit the apparently cardinal sin of "hate" by not liking something (they don't like my continued breathing, I don't like their attempts to murder me) we're morally equal and the truth is in the middle.

Great logic from whichever dumbass group (Christians, the sort of liberal "allies" who are all for gay rights unless it requires ever doing anything or opposing anyone, concern trolls) you represent.

[Morgenstern]

Please show me where CFA has, in any way, by whatever means, attempted to murder you.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Please show me where CFA has, in any way, by whatever means, attempted to murder you.

Just have to say, this cracked me up.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Please show me where CFA has, in any way, by whatever means, attempted to murder you.

They provide direct support to groups which fall at various points along the spectrum of helping to pass laws mandating the killing of sexual minorities, opposing laws that would make it possible to prosecute those who kill sexual minorities, generally reminding violent savages at home and abroad that sexual minorities would be a great target for consequence-free violence, and/or upholding or creating legal precedents such as marriage inequality which enshrine in the law and the psyche of individuals the notion that sexual minorities do not deserve to be treated as human, thus encouraging or excusing violence against them.

Originally Posted by magellan01

Just have to say, this cracked me up.

I am already aware that, as a Christian, you take glee in causing pain and death to minorities. No need to post reminders.

[Bosstone]

And suddenly, the title of this thread becomes relevant once more.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

And suddenly, the title of this thread becomes relevant once more.

Let me guess...another "liberal" whose attitude is "I support gay rights until that proclamation has to mean anything, and I'm getting pretty tired of these fags constantly asking for special rights like being part of civil society. We already agreed to stop killing you, why won't you shut up and stop endangering the campaign?"

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

Let me guess...another "liberal" whose attitude is "I support gay rights until that proclamation has to mean anything, and I'm getting pretty tired of these fags constantly asking for special rights like being part of civil society. We already agreed to stop killing you, why won't you shut up and stop endangering the campaign?"

Nope. A liberal whose attitude is "Holy fuck you, Condescending Robot, are a giant jackass and I'm embarrassed to have you argue for the pro-gay side because you do such a horrible job of it."

[Chen019]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

So this righteous asshole decided to engage in some vigilante "progressivsim" by berated some poor girl at a Chik-fil-a in Tucson for working for a hateful company. Yeah, I know Chik-fil-a sucks, its boss is a bigot, but WTF, this girl just is trying to earn some scratch in a job that I am sure she wishes she didn't have to have.

F*ck I hate jackholes. Especially smug ones like this guy seems to be. Glad he was fired.

heh, what a khunt.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Please show me where CFA has, in any way, by whatever means, attempted to murder you.

Personally, I have no trouble whatsoever believing that Chik-Fil-A has attempted to kill Condescending Robot. Not gays in general, but him specifically. It just seems like an entirely rational response to being around him for more than fifteen minutes.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

I am already aware that, as a Christian, you take glee in causing pain and death to minorities. No need to post reminders.

That's a rather strong statement.

How would you feel if someone said to me that they were aware that I, "as a Muslim, took delight in murdering Jews" or that Mr. Dibble "as a black man, took delight in raping black women"?

Beyond that, what is this massive victim complex you have?

I have some idea what it's like growing up as an "other" in the US and I've never been remotely as bitter as you are.

For that matter, most gay people I know, including one's who have real reason to be bitter aren't as upset as you are and none would have anything but contempt for some asshole who after behaving like a jackass felt the need to insist "I'm not gay".

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

That's a rather strong statement.

How would you feel if someone said to me that they were aware that I, "as a Muslim, took delight in murdering Jews" or that Mr. Dibble "as a black man, took delight in raping black women"?

Beyond that, what is this massive victim complex you have?

I have some idea what it's like growing up as an "other" in the US and I've never been remotely as bitter as you are.

Blah blah blah love the people who are oppressing you because everyone has to subscribe to bankrupt Christian "ethics" that conveniently enable Christians to continue kicking the shit out of gays whenever they feel like it, blah blah who cares.

For that matter, most gay people I know, including one's who have real reason to be bitter aren't as upset as you are and none would have anything but contempt for some asshole who after behaving like a jackass felt the need to insist "I'm not gay".

The person who made the video can be a dick and the people who think working for No Fags Chicken is the thing to do can also be dicks. (The people who absolutely insist that taking money to work for a Christian supremacist cult that fundraises for its horrific activities by selling chicken is beyond any level of question as a moral activity are also dicks.)

[magellan01]

You know, I think Condescending Robot has some really good points. Such a shame that his insights are shared only with the few here on the SDMB. Mr. Robot, would you be interested in reaching a wider audience? I think I could probably convince The Mormon Church to sponsor you for a radio show or something. You'd be a real asset.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

We're talking about working for CFA, not KKK.

This is a logical fallacy known as "special pleading." Assuming for the sake of argument that Chick-Fil-A is evil, then fundamentally how is working for them any different from working for the KKK? Either way, the employee is simply trading services for money.

It's not enough to simply assert that the two situations are different. You need to lay out a good reason why.

[cmyk]

But I so do love KKK's Lynch Mob Burger Supremes, char broiled over a flaming cross.

Do I order a free cup of water to chew out the cashier, or continue dining in with the kids because their paper placemats that roll up into a pointy hood are such a hoot?

Hmm, this is a tricky one...

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by brazil84

It's not enough to simply assert that the two situations are different. You need to lay out a good reason why.

The thing is, anyone with even the most rudimentary familiarity with the two organizations, and with more than three functioning neurons, should be able to quite easily see some fundamental ways in which these two organizations differ. If your particular three neurons are struggling with the issue, just say so and i'm sure someone can help you out.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by brazil84

Assuming for the sake of argument that Chick-Fil-A is evil,

There's your problem right there.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by mhendo

The thing is, anyone with even the most rudimentary familiarity with the two organizations, and with more than three functioning neurons, should be able to quite easily see some fundamental ways in which these two organizations differ. If your particular three neurons are struggling with the issue, just say so and i'm sure someone can help you out.

Are you one of the Christian supremacists or one of the hand-wringing "liberals" who views gays as an annoying obstacle to Obama's re-election? No matter, the end result is surprisingly similar both in terms of the public policy you will support and your failure to follow a line of argument.

"Obviously you don't believe that any form of employment is morally neutral, or you would have to defend working for the KKK" is not the same thing as "Chick Fil A and the KKK are exactly the same." Refusing to engage with the first (because it shows the weakness of the argument) and pretending the second is what was said is just dishonest.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

Are you one of the Christian supremacists or one of the hand-wringing "liberals" who views gays as an annoying obstacle to Obama's re-election? No matter, the end result is surprisingly similar both in terms of the public policy you will support and your failure to follow a line of argument.

"Obviously you don't believe that any form of employment is morally neutral, or you would have to defend working for the KKK" is not the same thing as "Chick Fil A and the KKK are exactly the same." Refusing to engage with the first (because it shows the weakness of the argument) and pretending the second is what was said is just dishonest.

You certainly have a plentiful supply of dumb.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

You certainly have a plentiful supply of dumb.

Engaged with the argument as always.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by mhendo

The thing is, anyone with even the most rudimentary familiarity with the two organizations, and with more than three functioning neurons, should be able to quite easily see some fundamental ways in which these two organizations differ.

It's not enough to show that they are different -- you must also show that they are different in some respect that's critical to morgenstern's earlier statement.

Here's what he said before, in case you forgot:

What the fuck is immoral about working for a living? They don't set corporate policy. They trade time for money. They trade money for living necessities.

It seems pretty clear to me that the exact same thing could be said for employees of pretty much any organization or institution.

If your particular three neurons are struggling with the issue, just say so and i'm sure someone can help you out.

Yes, my neurons are apparently struggling. Please explain how a low-level employee of any evil organization or company is not simply trading time for money without setting institutional policy.

Also, please answer my questions from post #192.

TIA.

[cmyk]

The KKK has low-level employees?

I guess someone has to knot the ropes.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by billfish678

There's your problem right there.

What exactly is the problem? The criticisms against Adam Smith seem to be that he berated a low level employee, not that his basic opposition to Chick Fil A is misplaced.

I personally am against homosexual marriage. I also think that those who support homosexual marriage are wrong to condemn people on my side of the debate as bad people. But if you start from the premise that those who oppose homosexual marriage are bad people; and that organizations which oppose homosexual marriage are bad organizations then it's reasonable to criticize those who work for such institutions.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by brazil84

My apologies, I must have misunderstood your position.

Please answer my questions from Post #149:

1. Under what circumstances does an employee of an evil corporation or institution deserve criticism for voluntarily serving as an employee of an evil corporation or institution?

Please tell me your general principle as best you can. Or are you saying that the question is impossible to answer?

Someone deserves criticism for working for an evil corporation if they could just as easily, with the very same benefits to themselves (understood broadly, as in, the same benefits concerning everything and everyone they care about), work at a non-evil corporation. Note that I am giving here a sufficient condition for criticism, not a necessary one.

That also takes care of your question 2.

[cmyk]

I sure as fuckall wouldn't want to be associated with Chick-Fil-A, but even I can see a difference between getting a min-wage job as a cashier at a legal restaurant establishment to pay some bills (outright accusing her of hate by association because her employer happens to have some corporate hate-based policy would be ridiculous unless she actually comes forward as against SSM), and...

...Some Neo-nazi seeking secret initiation into an infamous and likewise branded hate organization, with a renowned history of violence and murder, which operates within a surreptitiously anonymous underground.

Both repugnant, but there are layers of reasonable deniability/ignorance in the former that the latter does not have.

Nice to see brazil84 associate with the former, not seeing the difference, and likewise putting himself in association with the latter.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by brazil84

. . .


Yes, my neurons are apparently struggling. Please explain how a low-level employee of any evil organization or company is not simply trading time for money without setting institutional policy.

Honestly, by asking such a question you're demonstrating that mhendo overestimated the number of functioning neurons you have.

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Honestly, by asking such a question you're demonstrating that mhendo overestimated the number of functioning neurons you have.

It's almost mind boggling that people like b84 can live on such a weak foundation, and under a house-of-cards-like world-view... yet somehow their stupidity serves as an incredibly strong joint compound.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by cmyk

The KKK has low-level employees?

Driving around giving black people dirty looks doesn't pay as well as one would think.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by brazil84

It's not enough to show that they are different -- you must also show that they are different in some respect that's critical to morgenstern's earlier statement.

It seems to me that anyone who can't see such differences is either dishonestly and willfully blind to them, or is completely ignorant of the two organizations is question. I'll be charitable and assume that you are merely ignorant, rather than dishonest and willfully blind.

Firstly, the KKK is not an employer in the same sense that CFA is an employer. As alluded to by cmyk in a recent post, it doesn't even have "low-level employees" in the same way as a fast-food organization does. It is primarily a membership organization, not primarily an employer. In that sense, the two organizations aren't really comparable.

Connected to this issue, but even more importantly, the KKK is, first and foremost, an ideological organization. It isn't a chicken-selling or a service-providing organization that happens to be run by someone with an ideological bent. In the case of Chik-Fil-A, its main purpose is to make money by selling a particular product; in the case of the KKK, its ideology is its very raison d'etre. For CFA, the ideology is coincidental to the existence of the company (the guy didn't decide to sell chicken because he hates queers); for the KKK, the ideology is the only reason for the organization to exist in the first place. For CFA, the product is chicken; for the KKK, the product is ideology.

It should be very clear that someone who "joins" CFA as an employee—especially a low-level service employee, and especially in the period before the company gained nationwide notoriety for its political positions on gay marriage—most likely did so primarily because that person needed to make a living, and CFA happened to be a reasonable way to earn money. I guess it's vaguely possible that some employees joined the company as a "fuck you" to the gay community, but for the most part i'm willing to bet that a bigger consideration was, "Will this job allow me to pay rent and keep from starving?"

By contrast, people join the KKK precisely and specifically because they subscribe to its ideology. The KKK isn't well-known as a reliable, nationwide employer with decent hours and good health bennies. It is known as a political organization, and its politics and ideology are precisely what attract people to it. I guess it's possible that there are a few people working within the KKK who are employed in non-ideological job, and who don't subscribe to the KKK's philosophy.

It's possible, for example, that there's an accountant who does the KKK's books, and who works out the organization's financial affairs without subscribing to its ideology. But if such a person exists, he or she is a small minority within the organization. And, to be honest, if some accountant (or whatever) had to choose between working for the KKK and not having a job, i probably wouldn't be too critical of him or her making the decision that kept the rent paid and food on the table.

As i said above, CFA is, first and foremost, selling chicken. Its leader is also pushing an ideology, but there is no necessary connection between that ideology and most of the company's employees. CFA employees end up with the company not because they want to end gay marriage, but because they want to pay their rent. The KKK, on the other hand, is first and foremost selling an ideology. The people who get involved in the KKK are mostly members and supporters, rather than employees, and they are attracted to the organization precisely because of the ideology it is selling.

All of this is precisely why i'm not willing to condemn an employee of Chik-Fil-A (or any other "evil" company) just because they happen to work for said company. Condescending Robot is welcome to characterize me as either a "Christian supremacist" or a "hand-wringing 'liberal' who views gays as an annoying obstacle to Obama's re-election," but neither pole of that asinine dichotomy describes my position. I simply recognize, in cases like this, that we can draw valid distinctions between the people who set policy at companies like CFA, and people who simply need a paycheck to live. We can also draw valid distinctions between organizations whose prime purpose is business, and organizations whose prime purpose is political ideology, and we make reasonable distinctions between those who get involved in the first type and those who get involved in the second.

[Simple Linctus]

What the hell is wrong with most of you lot? He subjected this "chick" (who looked about thirty) to less than a minute of "abuse".

Seriously I was expecting something entirely different. I don't geddit.

(And please don't forget that hating gay marriage is disgusting. I mean, horrendously so)

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Confused dart cum

What the hell is wrong with most of you lot? He subjected this "chick" (who looked about thirty) to less than a minute of "abuse".

Seriously I was expecting something entirely different. I don't geddit.

Well, for myself, i don't think the guy should be locked up or anything. Nor do i believe that he inflicted some heinous damage on the woman. I doubt she's scarred for life.

But he acted like a total douche. I'm not sure what's unclear about that.

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by Confused dart cum

What the hell is wrong with most of you lot? He subjected this "chick" (who looked about thirty) to less than a minute of "abuse".

Seriously I was expecting something entirely different. I don't geddit.

(And please don't forget that hating gay marriage is disgusting. I mean, horrendously so)

He was being a sanctimonious blowhard, and douchnozzled it all over Chick-Fil-A chick. She was probably amused or at least all WTF about it all anyway as working a drive thru window brings you assholes bigger than that.

The sad part is he thought he was pretty fucking awesome, and actually uploaded that on the Internet, defying commonsense and forgetting the Internet has the same maturity level as 7th graders. His employers, now embarrassed that the guy they hired as CFO douched all over everything that has wifi access, asked him to step down so as not bring bad PR on the company.

A case of self-sabotage and a moral to everyone: If you're gonna be a douche, don't record it. And if you do, don't upload it on YouTube.

What a world.

[cmyk]

It's what I'd call a douché.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by cmyk

The sad part is he thought he was pretty fucking awesome, and actually uploaded that on the Internet, defying commonsense and forgetting the Internet has the same maturity level as 7th graders.

This is really what cements it, and why I have no sympathy. It wasn't broadcast live. He had time to review the video and was apparently pleased with the outcome. He apparently didn't think "hmm, this actually doesn't come across that well, maybe I should try again and try to find a target who'll sass me back a little." No, he saw the video of him being a dick to a sweet-faced female cashier who politely took it in stride and concluded that this was going to be a really effective piece of publicity for the cause.

I care less about the "right or wrong" of confronting a low-level employee and more about what he was trying to accomplish with this bit of theater. It was poorly planned, poorly executed, poorly judged, and it rightfully blew up in his face.

b84's lame attempts at equivalency with the Klan are just that, lame. He has one tool, the bread-crumb trail into a "gotcha!" trap, and struggles mightily to apply it to every situation.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Someone deserves criticism for working for an evil corporation if they could just as easily, with the very same benefits to themselves (understood broadly, as in, the same benefits concerning everything and everyone they care about), work at a non-evil corporation.

Ok, so if the head policy-maker at Evilcorp would have to take a $1000 a year pay cut to work for Goodcorp, e.g. from $201,000 per year to $200,000 per year, then he doesn't deserve any criticism?

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by brazil84

Ok, so if the head policy-maker at Evilcorp would have to take a $1000 a year pay cut to work for Goodcorp, e.g. from $201,000 per year to $200,000 per year, then he doesn't deserve any criticism?

Of course he does. You don't think that contradicts the principle I articulated, do you?

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by mhendo

It seems to me that anyone who can't see such differences is either dishonestly and willfully blind to them, or is completely ignorant of the two organizations is question. I'll be charitable and assume that you are merely ignorant, rather than dishonest and willfully blind.

Seems to me you are describing yourself pretty well here. Projection, I suppose.

Firstly, the KKK is not an employer in the same sense that CFA is an employer. As alluded to by cmyk in a recent post, it doesn't even have "low-level employees" in the same way as a fast-food organization does.

So what? We are talking hypotheticals here, and it's reasonable to hypothesize that the KKK has had occasion to hire low level employees.

Surely there have been many KKK-like organizations over the years who have hired low level employees.

Connected to this issue, but even more importantly, the KKK is, first and foremost, an ideological organization. It isn't a chicken-selling or a service-providing organization that happens to be run by someone with an ideological bent.

Again, so what? You are conveniently forgetting the original point, which I will quote again:

What the fuck is immoral about working for a living? They don't set corporate policy. They trade time for money. They trade money for living necessities.

A low-level employee of a KKK-like organization is simply working for a living, not setting policy. He is trading time for money.

It's hard to believe that you are so ignorant to have forgotten this point -- it must be your intellectual dishonesty and self-deception.

It's possible, for example, that there's an accountant who does the KKK's books, and who works out the organization's financial affairs without subscribing to its ideology. But if such a person exists, he or she is a small minority within the organization. And, to be honest, if some accountant (or whatever) had to choose between working for the KKK and not having a job, i probably wouldn't be too critical of him or her making the decision that kept the rent paid and food on the table.

Perhaps not, but you would still criticize him -- even though he is simply trading time for money.

Anyway, you have continually ignored my simple, reasonable questions from Post #192.

Significantly, you dishonestly implied that my position was that it would be illegal for the university to continue to employ Smith. When called on it, you simply ignored your strawmanning rather than own up to it and apologize.

You also ignored my simple, reasonable questions about your position; presumably you wish to hide your intellectual dishonesty behind a cloak of ambiguity.

In any event, I have no interest in engaging with people who engage in this kind of conduct.

Goodbye, liar.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Of course he does. You don't think that contradicts the principle I articulated, do you?

Yes, I must have misunderstood your point.

Let's try again.

If I understood you correctly, if the window girl at Chick-Fil-A could switch to an equivalent job at the Wendy's across the street, then she deserves to be criticized.

Right?

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

This is really what cements it, and why I have no sympathy. It wasn't broadcast live. He had time to review the video and was apparently pleased with the outcome. He apparently didn't think "hmm, this actually doesn't come across that well, maybe I should try again and try to find a target who'll sass me back a little." No, he saw the video of him being a dick to a sweet-faced female cashier who politely took it in stride and concluded that this was going to be a really effective piece of publicity for the cause.

And thats also why his latter apology video was self serving bullshit. That didn't come out till well after the shit had hit the fan.

Note that in his apology video only a few short sentences in he says something like "I've wanted to apologize to X since the moment the words came out of my mouth".

So, he realized he was a rude dick to somebody right away AND still put the damn thing up AND then took a day or three to put up an apology.

Either he's dumber than fuck or he is lying through his teeth about immediately wanting to apologize. But probably both.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Honestly, by asking such a question you're demonstrating that mhendo overestimated the number of functioning neurons you have.

Funny then, that you are unable to answer the question.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by brazil84

Yes, I must have misunderstood your point.

Let's try again.

If I understood you correctly, if the window girl at Chick-Fil-A could switch to an equivalent job at the Wendy's across the street, then she deserves to be criticized.

Right?

To more precisely repeat what I said before, if she could switch to a job with the very same benefits to her (in the broad sense described in the previous post), then she deserves criticism. Again, that is sufficient for her to deserve criticism, but it is not necessary.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Frylock

To more precisely repeat what I said before, if she could switch to a job with the very same benefits to her (in the broad sense described in the previous post), then she deserves criticism. Again, that is sufficient for her to deserve criticism, but it is not necessary.

And if she won the lottery she wouldn't have to work at all. But then, she'd be accepting money from an evil government that disallows SSM. Is that how it works?

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by brazil84

In any event, I have no interest in engaging with people who engage in this kind of conduct.

Goodbye, liar.

Does that mean i've finally shown you up sufficiently to make it onto your personal banned list?

Please don't throw me in the briar patch! Please!