Chick-Fil-A: Society Gone Full Retard

[Tonopah]

LA basin is far more diverse and tolerant of cultural differences than the SF bay area. People, given the freedom, self-segregate into racial and economic groups. Hunters Point (black working class/poor), Mission (mixed low/middle class white/Latino working class), Castro (mostly upper middle class white/mixed ethno) , North Beach (mixed ethno / former Italian), Pacific Heights (super ultra rich white/asian), Haight (mixed/white older former ponytail yuppies), Chinatown (rich and poor Chinese) are prime examples.

Just look at the voting graphs for more proof of my example of diversity in thought between the two regions. LA is primarily center left but SoCal leftist voters, on occasion, will cross party lines and vote for center-right oriented issues. Voters in the SFBA rarely cross political lines, no matter the issue. Now tell me, who is more flexible in thought and action - people who absolutely never cross party lines or voters that defy party policy and vote their conscience?

But we do agree on the single, most important point. Demagoguing the opposition benefits no one but the radical activists of both parties.

Salad bowl or culture smelter, people interact.

PS; I lived in downtown SF at bush/leavenworth and franklin/sutter streets.. The people there are very gay, very white and quite wealthy.
EDIT:
LA and SF no go zones - '
East Oakland = Compton
East Palo Alto = Compton
Hunters Point = Compton

I've been jumped and attacked by latino gangsters at Ocean Beach, attacked by 3 black guys in San Mateo and confronted by an armed (.38 snubnosed revolver), angry and confused Latino pimp in Venice Beach. No place is truly safe.

[borka]

fixed for better understanding:

SF and LA no go zones - '
East Oakland = Compton
East Palo Alto = Compton
Hunters Point = Compton

ty Tonopah for some insight!

[questionmark]

I guess one mans crime-ridden-shit-hole is anothers center-of-the-universe, eh?
And, for fun, this is what comes to mind when i think of LA

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... bTtyQAmEeg

But i guess it could just as easily be set in SF (theyre both silly, self-absorbed places in my book)

[borka]

for some sure (craps an bluuds):
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=22724&start=980#p373897

I'm ok with my local shitty holes and don't need no center-of-the-universe

[Ignus]

But let me guess, since Webster's says it doesn't mean that anymore, then it doesn't.
Fine, let us not use the etymological structure of language anymore. Let us just make up new definitions to words. Just as long as we cite Merriam Websters.... Fucking tool...

EDIT: I guess by your stupid ass logic, the word homogenous means "gay all over", just as long as Merriam Webster says so.

Yes, pretty much. Webster's is a painstakingly researched contemporary account of word usage in the United States and is only reporting how the language is actually used. Language is a dynamic cultural exchange and etymology, if you were not aware, is the history and evolution of words, not a dead end definition. Unless of course you are French, then you have the looming patriarchs of the Académie Française telling you that iPod is masculine and you aren't allowed to abbreviate on pain of death.

[dagrimreefah]

Yes, pretty much. Webster's is a painstakingly researched contemporary account of word usage in the United States and is only reporting how the language is actually used. Language is a dynamic cultural exchange and etymology, if you were not aware, is the history and evolution of words, not a dead end definition. Unless of course you are French, then you have the looming patriarchs of the Académie Française telling you that iPod is masculine and you aren't allowed to abbreviate on pain of death.

So, you're saying the English language is solely defined by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.?

[Ignus]

So, you're saying the English language is solely defined by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.?

No, you're getting it backwards, we define the Encyclopædia Britannica. It changes in response to changes in usage. "Hello" for instance used to be a word for when you are surprised e.g "Hello, there's a rat in my sandwich!" and changed as a result of Edison popularising it as a way of answering the phone. Words change, the dictionaries merely reflect how we use language.

[Saxony4]

Apparently the owner of Chick-Fil-A (a fast food restaurant chain in the U.S.) made a statement about being against gay marriage.

Food chains have no place in politics

On a side note, there's a Chick-Fil=A in the plaza in the town over, I heard it's pretty good.

[dagrimreefah]

No, you're getting it backwards, we define the Encyclopædia Britannica. It changes in response to changes in usage. "Hello" for instance used to be a word for when you are surprised e.g "Hello, there's a rat in my sandwich!" and changed as a result of Edison popularising it as a way of answering the phone. Words change, the dictionaries merely reflect how we use language.

That logic applies mostly to expressions or declarative words. But you do raise a valid point. I believe things like medical terms should adhere strictly to formal etymology though.

Besides, as I said the misuse of the term "homophobia" was only recently popularized. It really means fear of the same. Otherwise, how would you go about diagnosing someone who has a fear of the same? (They do exist)

Homoerotophobia is the correct word to use.

[Ignus]

Yea, an ancient Greek would be a little miffed at the usage, but it comes from a tradition in the sciences to knowingly use Latin or Greek incorrectly as far as the native speakers would be concerned. Translate any animal or medicine, it's gibberish. Also, to argue correct usage is like the old "octopuses" vs. "octopi" argument people sometimes like to have. They're both wrong, it's "Octopods" if you wanted to be hoity-toity about it, and then that's wrong because marine biologists just call them octopuses anyway. So it's a moot point really.