Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The polite thing is to quote enuff of the post to put things in context which you utterly and purposely failed to do:Now which other group of people has done this throughout history?
And because you turned it into such a dishonest post I won't even respond to such a sad and pitiful "question".....The issue is not that these company's have policies that many of us disagree with; the issue is that they feel the need to shove it down peoples throats as if only they are right and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Had paypal simply quietly dropped their expansion plans probably very little would have been said. Instead they had to make a huge public issue out of it, attempting to demonize an entire state. Not a smart move; they would have done better to do it quietly. Of course, they still have the Singapore office; the country that is far more repressive to lgbt than NC could ever possibly be. That certainly has to be an embarrassment to them.
It's not special privilege if it's available to anyone. Your false equivalence not withstanding.Let's look at it this way. I go to the mens room and it is all funky and I decide to use the women's room. I walk in someone says something to security, they confront me and then I say "I feel like a female today" and now I get to walk away. Sounds like special privilege to me.
Sounds like a strawman to me.Let's look at it this way. I go to the mens room and it is all funky and I decide to use the women's room. I walk in someone says something to security, they confront me and then I say "I feel like a female today" and now I get to walk away. Sounds like special privilege to me.
He made a perfectly fair point. The fact you don't like the way it made your cognitive dissonance bite doesn't make it "dishonest".The polite thing is to quote enuff of the post to put things in context which you utterly and purposely failed to do:
And because you turned it into such a dishonest post I won't even respond to such a sad and pitiful "question".....
No, he quoted out of context. I was talking about companies he turned it into people. Though it is not surprising you could not see that....He made a perfectly fair point. The fact you don't like the way it made your cognitive dissonance bite doesn't make it "dishonest".
No, he quoted out of context. I was talking about companies he turned it into people. Though it is not surprising you could not see that....
I think the devil is in the details here. Consider this situation:
Fred takes some personal risk by rescuing a drowning person on Monday. On Tuesday, he sees someone else drowning yet chooses not to help.
Here, I agree with you - Fred's refusal to act on Tuesday does not negate his action on Monday. And there is another important difference from the paypal scenario: Fred is not saving drowning swimmers as a calculated act to improve his own wealth - he is simply reacting as a caring person. Fred can be rightfully praised as a good person.
However, I suggest the situation with corporations is not analogous. If they do "good things" when there is little or no financial downside (and possibly even a profit to be made), and fail to do "good things" when it costs them, there is no basis to see their good acts as praiseworthy: acting "morally" is more profitable, and I maintain that is all they care about.
Even if taking a stand costs them in the short term, they would only that stand if they believed it would be ultimately profitable in the long term.
I politely assume that, like me, you are a mere minion - a working level person. I believe people like you and me can easily assume too many good things about the "power-brokers" that run our world. I know this seems cynical but I believe that, in the main, they are decidedly less moral than the rest of us.
Here is a quote from activist Chris Hedges (I am sort of a fan of his, although I think he can be overly strident at times):
“We have to grasp, as Marx and Adam Smith did, that corporations are not concerned with the common good. They exploit, pollute, impoverish, repress, kill, and lie to make money. They throw poor people out of homes, let the uninsured die, wage useless wars for profit, poison and pollute the ecosystem, slash social assistance programs, gut public education, trash the global economy, plunder the U.S. Treasury and crush all popular movements that seek justice for working men and women. They worship money and power.”
I am giving an example of special privilege by showing I have to lie in order to get the same privilege that is extended to transgender. How is that a strawman?Sounds like a strawman to me.
It was perfectly valid. Personal attacks notwithstanding.No, he quoted out of context. I was talking about companies he turned it into people. Though it is not surprising you could not see that....
I assume you meant ".....their motives are impure (or not pure) and therefore the actions they take should be discounted".So it seems to me you are not arguing that they need to be consistent in their actions but rather that their motives are pure and therefore the actions they take should be discounted. Would you agree with that assessment?
Because it's not about using a clean bathroom, it's about using the bathroom appropriate for you. A right you have.I am giving an example of special privilege by showing I have to lie in order to get the same privilege that is extended to transgender. How is that a strawman?
Is there any real reason to think that Paypal has so much pull that they will be effective? They aren't exactly crucial to the economy.
So as long as were not doing it ourselves just supporting the people who do those things it's ok?
Yes they are, otherwise you could not sue them; you cannot sue a "thing" only a "person". However, that was not the context he used the word "people" in when I expressly used the word "company's".Corporations are people (according to that nice Mr Romney).
I assume you meant ".....their motives are impure (or not pure) and therefore the actions they take should be discounted".
If so, yes, that is basically what I am suggesting.
So, if you are male you should use the men's room, right? Not the women's because of a dirty bathroom or you feel female today, correct?Because it's not about using a clean bathroom, it's about using the bathroom appropriate for you. A right you have.
Their cause is to get free publicity.No, but it does seem that their actions are being discussed and so they are being effective in generating exposure to their cause.
That'd be a great argument for the Saudi's to use, "Sure we murder homosexuals for being who they are but look at all the good things we do!"Not what I am asking. Does support, in whatever capacity, of states that have human rights abuses negate other areas in which we are attempting to do good?
Let's look at it this way. I go to the mens room and it is all funky and I decide to use the women's room. I walk in someone says something to security, they confront me and then I say "I feel like a female today" and now I get to walk away. Sounds like special privilege to me.
Let's look at it this way. I go to the mens room and it is all funky and I decide to use the women's room. I walk in someone says something to security, they confront me and then I say "I feel like a female today" and now I get to walk away. Sounds like special privilege to me.
Any one could, if they were willing to lie about it....there is the rub. No one should have to lie to receive that same privilege.....Therefore it is a special privilege.Well gee if it's really that easy in your mind, then it sounds like anyone could do it, thus not special privilege.
Let's forget that it's a mischaracterization, since we aren't technically allowed to discuss that topic here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?