JCorNYC wrote:
I finally check what the hoopla was all about.
My verdict, it's "aight"
What is the big deal? It's a bit salty. I do like their Chik-fil-A sauce.

Bottomline, I still prefer Popeyes!

RickSp wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
As I mentioned, the views of the dead founder themselves are extraneous to making a choice over what to have for a meal. The vast majority of people simply don't care. I find it curious you do, but as I said, knock yourself out.

The views I refer to are the hateful views of Dan Cathy who is alive and well and getting rich peddling sandwiches.

JCMan8 wrote:
As I mentioned, the views of the dead founder themselves are extraneous to making a choice over what to have for a meal. The vast majority of people simply don't care. I find it curious you do, but as I said, knock yourself out.

RickSp wrote:
JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

And you are free to do so. I regard this as being a rebel without a cause, but knock yourself out.

I find it amusing that this seems to matter to you.
I am just a consumer making an informed choice and yet you manage to introduce race and other extraneous issues into the discussion. I suspect you are revealing too much. Do you feel the need to defend Cathy and his worldview?

And you are free to do so. I regard this as being a rebel without a cause, but knock yourself out.

RickSp wrote:
Quote:

I think "opposing bigotry" is an extraordinarily broad and vague concept, that you could apply it to all sorts of people (including these recent college protests where black students are explicitly saying how terrible "white fuckers" are), and that it makes absolutely no sense to inject political views into a consideration of what you feel like having for a meal.

Especially when, as you say, the founder has absolutely no chance of achieving his agenda.

But you are free to take whatever stance you want.

Nothing broad or vague about it. I won't buy a chicken sandwich from a wealthy bigot. Not very complicated.

I think "opposing bigotry" is an extraordinarily broad and vague concept, that you could apply it to all sorts of people (including these recent college protests where black students are explicitly saying how terrible "white fuckers" are), and that it makes absolutely no sense to inject political views into a consideration of what you feel like having for a meal.

Especially when, as you say, the founder has absolutely no chance of achieving his agenda.

But you are free to take whatever stance you want.

RickSp wrote:
So you think that opposing bigotry is peculiar? Odd. There are too many other good alternatives than to support Dan Cathy's hateful views.

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
All the more reason why your stance against them seems peculiar at best, but like I said, it's a free country.

JCMan8 wrote:
All the more reason why your stance against them seems peculiar at best, but like I said, it's a free country.

RickSp wrote:

Dan Cathy has lost the battle in any case. His bigotry did nothing to stop marriage equality.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

RickSp wrote:
I refuse to put even one penny into Dan Cathy's pocket. I won't support his bigotry.

Go ahead. That's your right.

Of course, millions of Americans disagree with you and his franchise has been absolutely booming despite a general downturn in the fast food industry, but you are free to do what you want.

RickSp wrote:
I refuse to put even one penny into Dan Cathy's pocket. I won't support his bigotry.

Yvonne wrote:
Dan Cathy is dead. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/bus ... il-a-owner-dies.html?_r=0

jcguy05 wrote:
lol @JCMan8 you really do enjoy arguing with everyone dont you.

Frank_M wrote:
Jcman8, you didn't say that Chick-fil-A was healthy or unhealthy, nor was healthfulness the focus of what I wrote. It's just a concept you latched on to, like "organic," perhaps so you could avoid standing by your own remark about "extraordinary quality" that hardly represents the reality of their products.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Please quote where I said Chick-Fil-A is healthy. Because in fact I said the opposite.

You didn?t say either. You wrote that it was food of ?extraordinary quality,? and became defensive at the suggestion that it isn?t.

The food isn't particularly healthy, but neither is 75% of the food sold in this country. Plus it's very good.

They are phenomenally successful for a reason. Haters gonna hate.

JCMan8 wrote:
Please quote where I said Chick-Fil-A is healthy. Because in fact I said the opposite.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
The reason this came up is a poster used the fact that Chik Fil A does not claim to sell "organic" meat as a basis to attack them. I pointed out how silly this was.

There was no attack by said poster, and his argument against their product wasn't based solely on whether they use organically produced meat.

A Chick-fil-A sandwich is certainly tasty, but in order to produce so many of them every day, factory farming becomes a necessity, and factory farmed poultry is nothing special in terms of flavor and texture, never mind the multitude of ills that go with the practice. It sure isn?t nonna?s chicken cutlet in those foil-lined bags.

Perhaps you also discount the reality that the fast-food industry, which includes Chick-fil-A just like it includes McDonald?s, has driven food science into a highly advanced field that allows mediocre products to taste better than they otherwise could.

Nobody is telling you to stop enjoying Chick-fil-A, but it?s unhealthy junk food by almost any standard and nothing special compared to good cooking with quality meats. There?s no need to defend the company or argue about the unfortunate use of ?organic? as a misleading advertising term. Enjoy your vices all you want, but don?t bother trying to rationalize them into goodness. Vices aren?t supposed to be good.

JCMan8 wrote:
The reason this came up is a poster used the fact that Chik Fil A does not claim to sell "organic" meat as a basis to attack them. I pointed out how silly this was.

CatDog wrote:
Fair enough, the majority of organic lovers probably do think it's healthier somehow. But I can understand the aversion or fright of pesticides and antibiotics making their way downstream. The FDA and other regulatory agencies have been wrong or slow on plenty of things in the past.

And make fun of organic lovers all you want, but at least their heart is in the right place and they do no harm by it, unlike anti-vaccine people. In the end, a person's preference for organic is a personal choice and won't affect anyone else, so long as they don't become militant about it and harass others. And maybe their personal choice will have the added benefit of preventing environmental contamination.