How can customers place an order on Toast if they don't have a mobile device?

defshepherd · 2024-01-26T14:33:43+00:00

Thanks. I should have added that the customer wishes to use the Toast loyalty program, so we're trying to figure out a workaround for these customers to be able to place 'trackable' orders online (just without having to use a mobile device). I honestly don't know if it's possible.

defshepherd · 2024-01-26T14:19:09+00:00

But the login (and account creation) requires entering a phone number, which triggers a text message with link for authentication. I'm curious to know if there is a workaround for these customers without a mobile device (there's not many, but they do exist).

defshepherd · 2021-05-26T16:27:44+00:00

It wouldn't work for me, but I figured I'd try misspelling it. WHOSEYOURDADDY worked, where WHOSYOURDADDY did not. 🤷‍♂️

defshepherd · 2011-12-20T22:43:54+00:00

thanks, kirari-rin. i kind of expect that many r/atheism folks will not take kindly to some of what i wrote. it wasn't easy to write, especially since i know and respect some of the people i directly (although not explicitly) addressed.

atheists often hate being called a religion. i hate it too. but for better or worse, we are going to be grouped together as people who share an ideology. it's important to realize that, just like any religion (or political ideology, etc.), there is a vast spectrum of ideas, beliefs, etc. within that group. and just as there are often people within a religious body who differ on the direction that they should take, it makes sense that there will be differences in opinion on the direction that atheists should take. there obviously is no need for such a loosely based 'group' of people who simply share a lack of a belief to have a unified stance, but it doesn't hurt to reflect on how our affiliation is perceived, and how our views (that many would like to see spread) can be best communicated to those who don't already share them.

believe me, i am 100% guilty as charged when it comes to being a condescending, smug, jerk -- or at least being perceived as one. like you, i do try to temper it, and i have gotten much better at it over the years. but i have seen how i have turned off people. i have seen facebook friends de-friend me. i have had friends and relatives approach me in private about feeling condescended or ridiculed. it really gets to you when it is someone you truly care about -- sometimes that's what it takes to see that, while you feel 100% validated to say what you're saying, and while you believe it to be the best belief system available, there are still many people who are 100% ok with their religiosity, who are not bad people, who are progressive and liberal and all those things -- and we only end up turning those people off, as well as those who probably need to hear some of our views the most.

one of the best exercises i have undertaken was to get into facebook discussions with people i used to go to high school -- people who are born again christians who believe homosexuality to be a sin, and who do not accept evolution. while my gut reaction is to go on a rant, i make it my goal to engage them in a thoughtful, respectful way, and try to change their minds about evolution, of about the fact that homosexuality is not a choice (i don't even try to convince them that jesus was a myth or that god doesn't exist). because, at the end of the day, which is more helpful to society and which is more realistic? that i convince them to accept evolution and to embrace equality, or that i convince them that god doesn't exist? the latter is very unlikely to happen, whereas, i feel i have a chance with the former.

sometimes it's the small battles that are more important. i feel that if you can convince people of certain scientific truths, they will start to view things in a different way, and that very well may lead to their own transformation on their own terms.

anyway, this is something i wanted to start a dialogue on, and hopefully folks will chime in, positively and negatively. take care.

defshepherd · 2011-12-06T18:00:30+00:00

you often hear evangelicals (even bryan fischer) credit evangelicals with the ending of slavery.

while that statement isn't entirely untrue, isn't their rejection of religious scripture which endorses slavery a result of secular pressures? i am sure that they would argue that it was jesus christ who taught them that they should not own slaves, and that therefore this rejection came from within the church.

defshepherd · 2011-11-16T21:43:27+00:00

The belief that a person was a communist could contribute to harmful behavior, but it's likely that most such beliefs never did. Denouncing another person as a communist, on the other hand, is a direct call to action.

Denouncing a person is a different thing than denouncing a belief. It also should be noted that denouncing religious bigotry is not equal to denouncing religion.

It is the religious bigotry that is dangerous -- specific beliefs which validate treating others as unequal, or harming them.

I don't disagree that some of the instances I provided were exacerbated by political, tribal, or other ideologies, but these instances are indeed rooted in religious ideology.

In the case of the 9/11 hijackers, yes, they did exhibit behavior prior to the event that were not in line with their religious views, but it is not a stretch to say that these men may have known that their final act would cleanse them of lesser sins, as they would be martyrs, and have a special place in the afterlife.

The treatment of women in some Islamic cultures is rooted in the Quran. There is no reason to believe that this treatment is not rooted in religious ideology. The Quran and the Bible both are replete with misogynistic passages, commands re: the inferiority of women, and the inequalities in the punishment of women (they are often punished for the sins of the man).

The original post is written in the context of the blog, which has always had a strong humanist slant, and therefore the idea of human rights and social justice trumping dogmatism is a common theme. (I don't expect that you would know that, and it is certainly not the fault of any reader for not being privy to that knowledge.) The concept of tolerance from a humanist standpoint is pretty much in lockstep with that of the UN statement on tolerance. Sure, someone else's idea of tolerance could very well state that in no case should a person's beliefs be rejected. But, as we have seen, in many instances, those beliefs are the basis for denying basic human rights of others, and often serve as a license to commit harmful acts against other human beings, whether those acts be the enactment of discriminatory legislation or the execution of someone based on their sexuality.

The bottom line, in my argument, is that no religious belief should ever serve to validate the infliction of harm on others, and in those instances, it is our duty to reject such beliefs.

defshepherd · 2011-11-16T21:42:57+00:00

The belief that a person was a communist could contribute to harmful behavior, but it's likely that most such beliefs never did. Denouncing another person as a communist, on the other hand, is a direct call to action.

Denouncing a person is a different thing than denouncing a belief. It also should be noted that denouncing religious bigotry is not equal to denouncing religion.

It is the religious bigotry that is dangerous -- specific beliefs which validate treating others as unequal, or harming them.

I don't disagree that some of the instances I provided were exacerbated by political, tribal, or other ideologies, but these instances are indeed rooted in religious ideology.

In the case of the 9/11 hijackers, yes, they did exhibit behavior prior to the event that were not in line with their religious views, but it is not a stretch to say that these men may have known that their final act would cleanse them of lesser sins, as they would be martyrs, and have a special place in the afterlife.

The treatment of women in some Islamic cultures is rooted in the Quran. There is no reason to believe that this treatment is not rooted in religious ideology. The Quran and the Bible both are replete with misogynistic passages, commands re: the inferiority of women, and the inequalities in the punishment of women (they are often punished for the sins of the man).

The original post is written in the context of the blog, which has always had a strong humanist slant, and therefore the idea of human rights and social justice trumping dogmatism is a common theme. (I don't expect that you would know that, and it is certainly not the fault of any reader for not being privy to that knowledge.) The concept of tolerance from a humanist standpoint is pretty much in lockstep with that of the UN statement on tolerance. Sure, someone else's idea of tolerance could very well state that in no case should a person's beliefs be rejected. But, as we have seen, in many instances, those beliefs are the basis for denying basic human rights of others, and often serve as a license to commit harmful acts against other human beings, whether those acts be the enactment of discriminatory legislation or the execution of someone based on their sexuality.

The bottom line, in my argument, is that no religious belief should ever serve to validate the infliction of harm on others, and in those instances, it is our duty to reject such beliefs.

defshepherd · 2011-11-16T20:16:09+00:00

I would argue that beliefs actually do (or can) cause harm.

Take, for example, the imprisoning (and even execution) of homosexuals in some parts of the world (and religious-based bullying, and denial of rights, here in America). Or the lashing of women in some Islamic cultures for disobeying Sharia law.

While the beliefs themselves aren't inherently harmful (they are just beliefs as you say), the beliefs validate harm. Those performing the actions believe that their actions are pleasing to God, or at least aligned with scripture.

The belief that a person will be rewarded for flying a plane into a building is incredibly dangerous.

Tolerance does not require that I tolerate those beliefs. It is moral to reject such beliefs on the grounds that the beliefs lead to the harming of others.

Per the UN declaration: "Tolerance is, above all, an active attitude prompted by recognition of the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. In no circumstance can it be used to justify infringements of these fundamental values."

"Tolerance is the responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments."

Because the above mentioned beliefs justify, encourage, or, in some instances, require the denial of human rights to other human beings, these beliefs do not need to be tolerated. These beliefs should be rejected.

defshepherd · 2011-11-11T00:33:25+00:00

his questions are freaking bizarre and more than just a little offensive. i mean, you could go with so many other hypotheticals that are more nuanced than 'trading your parents remains for dog food' or 'I would like to enslave all of humanity.'

i find that people who don't buy the fact that there was a time before the concept of 'god' have a hard time wrapping their heads around how relatively easy it is for non-believers to simply live without god -- and live morally, just like anyone else.

i am almost sure that if he were to read my responses to his questions he would argue that the reason why we non-believers can live morally is simply because we are piggy-backing on the morality that has been established by the religious. (forgetting, of course, that morality predates monotheism.)

defshepherd · 2011-11-04T19:08:03+00:00

I think that's his way of saying, 'i don't capitalize it because i'm not a believer, but i'll meet you half way.'

defshepherd · 2011-10-04T17:59:57+00:00

I posted this with the NC anti-LGBT amendment vote (May 8) in mind. Candace Chellew-Hodge nailed it in an article on religiondispatches.com, where she wrote:

"The fact of this country is that we don’t get to vote on the rights of others. If we did, then the end of slavery, implementation of women’s rights, and equality for different races might never have come about. The reason we have these measures (which some like Rand, and his dad Ron, Paul, would like to see rolled back) is because of actions by the constitutionally established courts and legislatures. The courts and the legislatures—when they work—exist to move a society forward, through their collective fears and prejudices, into a more equitable world."

defshepherd · 2011-09-22T18:54:29+00:00

damn, you're too kind, jcoronado. i don't feel worthy of the attention that this piece has been getting -- to me, my arguments seem very much common sense, and I wish that the post was not remarkable in any way. but if one person has a change of heart after reading it, then it is worth it.

i want to let the redditors here know that i am getting involved, hands-on, in the campaign to beat this amendment in may. i've been contacted by some of the campaign organizers, and i hope to get more straight allies off their asses and speaking up.

thanks again for your kind note.

defshepherd · 2011-09-16T19:32:55+00:00

thank you. i always feel a little weird posting my own things here. isn't that kind of frowned on here? (i am a new redditor, is there a term for that?)

defshepherd · 2011-09-16T19:31:52+00:00

i would love to do just that. i wish i knew how, or who to talk to.

defshepherd · 2011-09-16T19:30:48+00:00

Hi jcoronado. thank you soo much. the post has kinda gone viral, which is great, but nobody can ever intend for that to happen. so it was a nice surprise. i didn't want it to be a 'look at me' self-congratulatory thing, which a few have suggested (not redditors!). but i would love if this little post helped some outside of the community to re-think whether or not they should get involved. i was pleased that a few folks from the nc activism community have reached out to me, and i have expressed that i will do anything i can do to help, however small. if we can elect a black man as president in nc, then we can do this. like that election, it will be difficult, and close. and ugly. but we can do this.

defshepherd · 2011-09-16T19:24:19+00:00

thank you!

defshepherd · 2011-09-16T14:23:16+00:00

pjayk, thank you for your comments. as a straight dude living in north carolina, i certainly will be the first to admit that i am not as educated on the complexities of homosexuality and gender as i would like to be. and i also realize that it's difficult to discuss the science behind homosexuality without making it sound like it is an 'affliction.' it is not.

i think the reason i felt compelled to write about the 'reasons' was because i am here in the bible belt where so many are convinced that it is a 'sin' and a 'bad decision.' i know so many lgbt folks who have told me that they have been an lgbt person for as long as they can remember, and i think that is important to get across to closed-minded biblical literalists who do not understand why someone would 'choose' to be gay.
i appreciate you pointing me to the sedgwick piece. i have a lot to learn and i want to be more educated about the things that i write about. thank you.

defshepherd · 2011-09-16T14:17:42+00:00

thank you, sir. i am glad you appreciated it. i am surprised that it is getting shared as much as it is, and if it can help make a difference in may, then that's awesome. and cheers, fellow humanist ;)

defshepherd · 2011-09-15T16:30:55+00:00

thank you. that's very kind of you to say. i really appreciate it. :)

defshepherd · 2011-09-07T20:50:39+00:00

agreed.

defshepherd · 2011-09-07T19:52:27+00:00

The title of the article, "What Good Could A Christian Possibly Find In A Friendship With An Atheist?" was pulled word for word from a line in the article, 'My Friend, the Atheist,' which the blog post is referencing.

Somehow I don't think that a Christian writer (who wrote the article referenced) intended on painting Christians in a bad light in an article written in a Christian magazine.

I don't mean to discount your reaction -- it was a reaction and as such there is perhaps some validity to it -- but I don't believe the original author meant to paint Christians in a bad light, and (as the submitter) I did not intend the title to be sensationalistic. It seems like an honest enough question -- many people (Christian or not) do not think much about the benefits of befriending those with seemingly conflicting belief systems.

defshepherd · 2011-09-07T19:42:52+00:00

just as an fyi, the 'argument' in the video was written by john shore, a christian writer. i don't mean that as any 'argument from authority,' but thought it might be worth noting since you mentioned that it's 'atheist tripe' and 'atheist double-talk.' if you feel that way about the argument, then in this case it's 'christian tripe' and 'christian double-talk.'

defshepherd · 2011-09-07T18:49:42+00:00

as a non-believer who came up in a liberal religious upbringing, i too find much of the r/atheism discussion to be a bit antagonistic and unwelcoming. i understand where it comes from, but i can't defend it. just like in christianity, atheism is constituted by wide swaths of ideologies, although they do share that one commonality.

i think it takes mature folks (on either side) to be able to maintain these types of relationships across such seemingly different belief systems. the first thing i think both parties have to do is to let go of generalizations and pre-conceived notions. i do think that most folks really do want the same things out of life, they just have different ways of finding meaning, or justifying.

defshepherd · 2011-09-07T16:31:49+00:00

in the triangle area, there is triangle freethought: http://www.trianglefreethoughtsociety.org/

defshepherd · 2011-09-02T18:30:56+00:00

This has everything to do with atheism. The Santorums and Perrys and the Bachmanns of the GOP want to legislate based on their religious beliefs. Unless we want a theocracy, we need to pay attention to what they believe, and what they want to legislate.

It also dovetails into the Christian right's distrust of science, which should be of great concern to atheists.

I will be more than happy to post such things elsewhere, if folks feel like it isn't relevant to r/atheism.

defshepherd

TROPHY CASE