billybob420
Well-Known Member
I'm not trying to stick up for the guy. I have never heard anyone call the SPLC a hate group before, so I investigated.
Was just reporting back my findings.
Was just reporting back my findings.
So not end of story. In debate you cannot just fold your arms and declare yourself the Winner. Show that Starbucks is funding a guerrilla campaign to physically harm others. Put up or ... you get it. cn
One more time, my point is, Chic-Fil-A does absolutely nothing different than Starbucks!
What part of this are you unclear on, my original claim was in the context that NEITHER Starbucks or Chic-Fil-A engages in any campaign that directly harms those they oppose.
Now, if you could please provide a post where you demonstrated the same passion defending Chic-Fil-A on the those very accusations, I won't label you a hypocrite!
The claim that induced me to respond was that Starbucks was anti-Christian. You are not backing that up. That is the extent of my interest: to either see you back it up, or to expose it as hyperbole. I'll ignore your moving the goalposts in mid-debate; no sale.
Chick-Fil-A via its captive WinShape foundation has been shown to actively support groups preaching violence unto the gays. That's much more than claiming they "support traditional marriage".
I want to know what Starbucks has done or been doing to actually assail Christians. Normal ones and not the dominionist fringe.
No; let's liberalize that If you can show that Starbucks has funded violence against the fundies and dominionists, I'll pay attention to that as well. cn
The claim that induced me to respond was that Starbucks was anti-Christian. You are not backing that up. That is the extent of my interest: to either see you back it up, or to expose it as hyperbole. I'll ignore your moving the goalposts in mid-debate; no sale.
Chick-Fil-A via its captive WinShape foundation has been shown to actively support groups preaching violence unto the gays. That's much more than claiming they "support traditional marriage".
I want to know what Starbucks has done or been doing to actually assail Christians. Normal ones and not the dominionist fringe.
No; let's liberalize that If you can show that Starbucks has funded violence against the fundies and dominionists, I'll pay attention to that as well. cn
My claim that Starbucks has funded organizations that are pro gay rights the same way Chick-Fil-A funds organizations that a pro traditional family rights, stands.
There's been many posts from far left websites that make accusations, but so far no proof.
I can say the same, I want to know what Chic-Fil-A has done or been doing to actually assail Gays?
You seem unwilling to admit, what's good for the goose is good for the gander!
He wont back up nothing
And dont expect him to look at facts no matter where they come from
But you've inverted the premise, moved the goalposts. Your stance that fished me in was "anti-Christian" as Chick-Fil-A is demonstrably anti-gay.
Now you've moderated it to "pro-this" vs. "pro-that". It's an undeclared retraction, but effectively a concession. I don't think you have anything in re Starbucks being anti-Christian. They're merely tolerant of gays. But Chick isn't merely tolerant of Christians ... they've sent real money to real groups that have a real agenda of real harm to real humans. Ironically, that ain't very Christian. cn
I've moved the goal posts! LOL
Your whole argument is built on conjecture, where are your facts that the Eagle Forum and Family Research Counsel have inflicted physical harm on any gay or lesbians, where is it?
Is it propaganda from far left organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center?
Total FAIL.
I think you need to post that list of five Chick-Fil-A harming gays instances. With source link, of course. cn
All you've brought is propaganda from dominionist hatesites. At worst, mirror fail. But (points) YOU started it! ~giggle~ cn
That's my point, that list is full of left wing propaganda, where is the real proof?
It does not say by whom SPLC was Officially declared a hate group. A curious omission. The organization I saw mentioned was a Stone the Queers with the Book! group. cn
But is it incorrect left-wing propaganda? You haven't established that. After my experiences with dominionists, it's not just plausibly correct but likely. Jmo. cn
Well isn't propaganda called propaganda because it's misleading information?
Wouldn't "correct propaganda" be considered an oxymoron? LOL
I also think there is a "from the opponent's camp" component. Somehow I doubt you'd call that stuff from dominionist websites propaganda, while I would. It's a polar thing. cn
And that is where you a wrong. I do consider it propaganda, on both sides.
Can you say the same?