its just a tree dude

they could at least make good pizza if theyre gonna kill trees or w/e

just another reason why papa johns is better

http://d3imyo1kk0rcam.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/77e80fa893faf45de460668bbf6c3903938742837-590x589.jpg

worth it.

its just an elephant dude*

trees have feelings dude

I'm starting to realize more and more how awful all of your posts are

the whole palm oil situation is so fucked up

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/940/817/f2d.png

That's why Indonesia is Indonesia xD

Care to explain?

I get that pizza hut is being disengenuous.

However, the real problem is the culture of places like Indonesia. They simply don't care about their own rainforest. Until they do, the problem will still exist. If we stop supporting them, they'll still cut down for their own industry and agriculture.

Not sure I fully agree with the above. You make a good point: the people there aren't standing up for their own environment. However, having just returned from Ecuador, I can tell you first-hand that even in countries where there is a strong environmental consciousness the rainforest is still being destroyed, in large part due to the international corporations that provide locals with financial motivation to strip their land of resources (sometimes there almost isn't an alternative as the environment-exploiting industry provides higher wages than any other profession in the small towns: in Ecuador this was oil). I think both issues, large corporations and local indifference, need to be addressed.

ty for making me look smart

local pizza is usually better anyways

papa johns does shit just as bad

eat local boys

I knew it!

Local companies in some way shape or form support a large corporation. You are in turn still supporting the large corporation. The only way to be sure you aren't feeding the pockets of the evil is to do everything yourself and never buy anything because capitalism is the real devil here.

"everything is bad therefore everything is equal therefore everything is equally bad"

whoa slow down there plato, relational arguments seem to have confounded you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

i like chocolate milk

so you admit he was employing a rhetorical device for some type of purpose.....a technique used to make a point......a point which he must believe or else he wouldnt have employed a rhetorical device to illustrate it........

that point?
well, his argument is a rebuttal to a post suggesting to eat local over papa johns so he must have disagreed in some manner with that point. as near as i can make of it, i would assume his argument is that the poster suggesting you eat locally is hypocritical because he suggests local eateries as a substitute for big corps when local eateries do "bad shit" too.

OR

its possible hes scoffing at the posters presumed superiority and is attempting to bring him down a peg. the original poster was after all scoffing himself at the suggestion of going to papa johns as a substitute for pizza hut, and zoltan might be attempting to do a similar thing to him to illustrate that they are all on one similar spectrum of shit that no one is above.

but these arguments only hold water if you buy into the all-or-nothing dichotomy. its pretty much inarguable that eating locally is superior or contributes less to the degradation of the planet. the poster was completely correct in stating that papa john’s is a poor substitute for pizza hut if youre concerned about the rain forest/planet, and he was similarly correct in saying that eating locally is a good substitute. His only flaw was one of omission! in not stating the obvious fact that everyone contributes to the degradation of the planet big and small alike. zoltan's point was unnecessary, pedantic, and obnoxious not to mention wrong.

If you're going to try to write a rhetorical analysis, the most important thing to get correct is the author's intent, if you get this wrong, the whole of your writing is invalid or just irrelevant. You correctly noted the hyperbole; however, you then said that my argument only holds water if you buy into an all-or-nothing dichotomy. Of course that is true because I was using hyperbole to draw attention to a more subtle area of the spectrum of shit that no one is above. Is it nearly as significant as I stated it was? Absolutely not, but it is still a factor.

There is, of course, the secondary purpose of wanting to be even somewhat humorous on a competitive first person shooter forum, specifically a thread about pizza shops and their contribution to the destruction of the environment in countries that don't give a rats ass about their trees which you failed to identify at all. Overall, you would probably get an unsatisfactory score on this rhetorical analysis; however, at least you tried, so you you didn't get a zero.

literally everything ive seen posted by you.

theyre arguing about a pizza (wow)

Nah man that'd be stupid. We're arguing about a stupid post on an argument about pizza, don't try to trivialize this important debate.

It's ok, algae is better

dominos a best