Askthepizzaguy V Bricker- The Great Pizza Debate

[Czarcasm]

Follow-up concerning Papa John. Change anyone’s mind?

[XT]

@Czarcasm

Follow-up concerning Papa John. Change anyone’s mind?

Thanks for the link…that makes a lot of sense. I was wondering about the franchise aspect and the context of the supposed quote.

[Czarcasm]

@XT

Thanks for the link…that makes a lot of sense. I was wondering about the franchise aspect and the context of the supposed quote.

No prob. Just trying to serve Master Bricker as best as I can.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Czarcasm

Follow-up concerning Papa John. Change anyone’s mind?

Well he certainly comes across better in his own words.

I liked the quotes he attributed to himself:

"The good news is 100% of the population (full-time workers) is going to get health insurance. I'm cool with that."
"We're all going to pay for it. There's nothing for free."
"And this way I get to provide health insurance and I'm not at a competitive disadvantage ... our competitors are going to have to do the same thing."

It makes me think that he DOES have business sense! And the phrasing is telling - “I GET to provide…”, rather than “I HAVE to provide”. This makes him look good.

Although this one:

Regardless of the conclusion of our analysis, we will honor this law, as we do all laws…

Made me think he was channeling Bricker Yes, color me surprised that his company is not going to break any laws.

A good counter-point, and good to see it in the lefty Huffington Post.

[billfish678]

@Czarcasm

Follow-up concerning Papa John. Change anyone’s mind?

That may change the “fact” as to whether Papa John is a dick.

But the premise of this debate was Papa said X, Y, and Z.

Bricker contention was X,Y, and Z did not make Papa a greedy dick. Most other folks contend that X,Y, and Z did make Papa a greedy dick.

Just because we now find out that X,Y, and Z were really A,B, and C where A,B, and C are much less greedy and dicklike doesn’t mean Bricker wasn’t full of baloney in the first place regarding what X,Y, and Z implied.

[running_coach]

ABCNews

“We’re not supportive of Obamacare, like most businesses in our industry,” Schnatter said on a conference call with shareholders last week, as reported by Politico. “If Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders’ best interests.”

This was back in early August.

[Dr.Colossus]

the debate is all well and good, but should we be worried about Pizzaguy? was he robbed? is he laying in a ditch someplace, in need of help, while bad guys scarf all his pizzas?

…where’d he go?

this thread insured i’m getting pizza for dinner now

[bobot]

papa john and friends…Hot Tuna this time…

[dropzone]

@Askthepizzaguy

No response in five days means you concede.

Well, that answers the question nobody asked, “Is Askthepizzaguy a sock?” because everybody who has been here a while knows that our good friend, Bricker, can keep going until the heat death of the universe as long as somebody responds to his previous post.

BTW, counsellor, that was said with affection and maybe some awe at your tenacity. Even when you are completely wrong.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

So… does this mean Askthepizzaguy lost?

[Crazyhorse]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

So… does this mean Askthepizzaguy lost?

I was never clear on the exact terms of this contest but I’m pretty sure this means that now Pizzaguy has 5 days to respond or he will have to be Bricker’s butler.

[Ethilrist]

It may just be that ATPG is honoring the terms of the original challenge: He guaranteed Bricker a 50% share of all posts in this thread, so he has to wait until Bricker posts another 40 or so times before he can post anything and meanwhile, so long as we all keep posting, as Scott Hamilton put it, “these numbers can only go up.”

Or, he’s sulking because we’re actually not all on his side, even though (ironically enough) that also indicates Bricker was kinda wrong in the referenced thread from whence this challenge arose.

[Bricker]

@emoticorpse

BTW if decency REQUIRES charity, then not being charitable automatically puts you a step BELOW decent? yet it doesn’t? because you don’t want him to land on the word greedy? can you give us the word in between decent and greedy that could define him without giving us the win and without losing this debate yourself?

I’ve already offered up uncaring, heartless, and selfish as possible adjectives, but I’m surprised that your post seems to imagine a one-dimensional continuum of meanings, seeking words “in between” greedy and decent.

That’s not it at all. Words have rich meanings; “greedy” and “evil” are not two points along a continuum that has “decent” and “saintly” at its other end. All are used to describe specific characteristics. Is it better, or worse, to be greedy or selfish? The two are not synonyms; each has a meaning the other does not. At the same time, they are not mutually exclusive.

[Bricker]

@Buck_Godot

OK, to put it another way do you view his actions as despicable enough that they are pit-worthy, regardless of what actual adjective you chose to use? If so why bother defending him over a slight disagreement of word choice.

Well, I don’t start many Pit threads, so my definition of “Pit worthy” may not be yours. But I agree his actions (as reported) deserve rebuke.

But i don’t agree “greedy” is the best word with which to describe them.

[Bricker]

@BigT

The thing about Bricker’s claim that charity is not required is that it violates his own stated belief to be a Catholic, since Catholicism, like all other forms of Christianity, teaches that charity is required. Those who don’t give to the poor don’t go to heaven.

Of course. But charity springs from the heart. Charity given because the law requires it earns no grace. Charity MUST be voluntary.

As pointed out earlier, he also discounts his own church’s definition of greed, which does specifically mean serving Mammon and not God. It means putting money in front of other things.

Cite?

[wevets]

@Bricker

Of course. But charity springs from the heart. Charity given because the law requires it earns no grace. Charity MUST be voluntary.

Excuse me while I vomit all over the notion that charity is about the giver and not about the sick, the unclothed, and the hungry. By definition, if it’s about the person who already has these things, it’s not charity.

[Czarcasm]

@wevets

Excuse me while I vomit all over the notion that charity is about the giver and not about the sick, the unclothed, and the hungry. By definition, if it’s about the person who already has these things, it’s not charity.

Of course it’s about the giver for the most part. In my mind charity is what is given, but what is received is a gift.

[TriPolar]

pizzaguy seems to be making a comeback. Quit while you’re ahead Bricker.

[Caffeine.addict]

@wevets

Excuse me while I vomit all over the notion that charity is about the giver and not about the sick, the unclothed, and the hungry. By definition, if it’s about the person who already has these things, it’s not charity.

I was raised somewhat Catholic although I am extremely lapsed, and frankly was never a good Catholic to begin with, but I think that you are misinterpreting the quote.

The point is that if you are required to do charity, then it doesn’t count as charity from the perspective of the Catholic requirement that you do good works to earn your place in heaven. This means that your reasons for doing charity are important, not just your end result.

[John_Mace]

@wevets

Excuse me while I vomit all over the notion that charity is about the giver and not about the sick, the unclothed, and the hungry. By definition, if it’s about the person who already has these things, it’s not charity.

How would someone give anything if he had nothing?

But besides that, the discussion here is all about the obligation, either legal or ethical, of a wealthy person such as EVIL CEO. Your objection to that context is perplexing. Did you not read any of this thread?