Weasel weasel weasel....

Post #28,960 by Brandioch 2/19/02 3:24:09 PM Reply	Weasel weasel weasel.... A corporation is no more good or evil than the people that run it. Since a corporation doesn't really exist, how could it more evil than the people in it? BUT! A corporation allows the small amounts of "evil" to be consolidated in large amouts of "evil" (or "good" for that matter). So, you moron, there really is no difference to me between the statement of >Ben< of Ben&Jerry's...and Ben&Jerry's. I understand that. And that is where YOU are WRONG. But, as always, you have a problem admitting that. Allow me to illustrate this more fully. Did B&J give money to free him? No. Did B&J provide any support for his cause? No. Did B&J do ANYTHING AT ALL to IN ANY WAY help this guy? No. So, no matter what Ben Cohen did AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, B&J did nothing. And that is where your binary logic breaks down. Ben Cohen did something. Therefore, B&J has those ethics. But there is no tangible proof OF ANY SORT that B&J, in ANY WAY supports that cause. But that doesn't matter to YOU. Because Ben is the "B" in "B&J", that means that "B&J" as the same ethics as Ben. And this makes sense to you. I don't support the actions of a company founder. Thus, I don't support the company. Very simple POV. Yep. Very simple. Very binary. Just as I've been saying. Sorry you don't understand. And I keep telling you that I do understand. You're operating in binary mode, again. It's very simple to see. But you can't accept that you were incorrect about B&J contributing money to that cause. That's your problem, Bill. One of many. As for those other statements that I can't answer for........................ Do you know what the "fishing" is? How about "fly fishing"? The "fly" is NOT a real fly. It is NOT something that is good for the fish. It is a "lure". It is "fake". It is used to "hook" the fish. Those posts were "lures" and you were the "fish". I don't have to answer to the fish because I'm using a "fly" that isn't as yummy in reality as it looked before you swallowed it. I just hook the fish and cook it. You've been lured, hooked, filleted and cooked.
Post #29,000 by a6l6e6x 2/19/02 8:57:51 PM Reply	The officers of Enron thank you for your support! Enron, the company, never gave any politician any money. Civic-minded officers and PACs did that. Alex "Of course, you realize this means war." -B. Bunny
Post #29,055 by Brandioch 2/20/02 11:28:56 AM Reply	Why oh why oh why. You'd be correct. >IF< none of the money was from Enron's budgets. Only from the paychecks of the individuals involved. Now, a trivia question. What other systems/agencies utilize a system similar to this?
Post #29,152 by a6l6e6x 2/21/02 12:17:14 AM Reply	Re: Why oh why oh why. Companies expect their upper management to be "civic-minded" and use some of their wealth in "positive" ways. That's one reason they are paid so well. The pay comes with "responsibilities". To some degree it happens to all employees. Ever see the gentle coercion in a United Way campaign at a large firm? I can imagine what goes on in corporate management meetings. On the trivia question: State employees, for one, are often "encouraged" to support the re-election of their agency head or else the person who appointed him/her. Alex "Of course, you realize this means war." -B. Bunny
Post #29,014 by bepatient 2/19/02 11:45:22 PM Reply	I'm so happy for you. You apparently are enjoying yourself. Good. I'm not surprised you cannot understand my POV. Applying your binary style to it doesn't work. Ben supports a position that I do not. Ben will manage the company according to his beliefs. Thus the company will be managed in a way contrary to my beliefs. It doesn't matter to me which "entity" is credited for the behavior. I see no difference...because the corporation itself is NOTHING without the people who run it. Just a legal document in a file cabinet in Delaware or some other state. Sorry that concept seems to be beyond your ability to comprehend. As for your "fly" argument. Suit yourself. The folks here can make their own decisions about the validity of this claim. It sure looks to me like a cop out. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #29,051 by Brandioch 2/20/02 11:18:45 AM Reply	Hey, I'm not the one with the problem. You're the one who has to be manipulated into admitting that an OBVIOUSLY incorrect statement you made is incorrect. Then you weasel around it by claiming that the "ethics" of ONE of the people in the company are the "ethics" of that company. Even when I've shown you that B&J did NOT give money to or any support to them. And you accuse ME of being "binary"? Sorry, but YOU are the one who cannot see Ben's company and Ben's personal life as two distinctly different items. But, once again, you'll never admit that you're wrong. Even though you can't show that B&J's ever gave money to them (as you originally claimed). Nor did they give any other support to them. But none of that matters to you 'cause you KNOW you're right and ONE signature by ONE person in that company (acting as a private citizen) is the "ethics" of that company. Live your life whatever way you want to. Those of us without your binary limitations can see that such is not the case. Of course, you will also claim that I have that binary limitation (doesn't "binary" mean "two states" or something?) even when I can see B&J as a company distinct from Ben and distinct from Jerry (wow. I see three states, Ben, Jerry and Ben & Jerry's). You see two states. Ben's ethics == Ben & Jerry's ethics. What about Jerry? Oh, your binary mind can't handle a third state so you can't even consider him. It doesn't matter to me which "entity" is credited for the behavior. I see no difference... Exactly. You operate in a purely binary mode. You CAN'T see any difference. This is a psychological limitation on your part. You can't see that there's a Jerry in Ben & Jerry's. You can't see that there is a COMPANY that is NOT Ben. All you see is Ben and Not-Ben. Like I said, binary. Sorry that concept seems to be beyond your ability to comprehend. Ummm, I seem to be the one telling >YOU< that the company is distinct from Ben. You seem to be the one who is unable to comprehend that. Like I said, you originally claimed that B&J's gave money to that cause. That is easily shown to be incorrect. Now you weasel about how Ben's ethics are B&J's ethics. Completely disregarding Jerry's (the "J" in B&J's) ethics not to mention the ethics of every other person in that company. Again, because your binary mind can only see Ben and not-Ben. There is no partial-Ben or Ben's-company-he-started-with-Jerry. As for your "fly" argument. Suit yourself. The folks here can make their own decisions about the validity of this claim. I hope they do. Otherwise, they're mindless sheep. For reference, look at how this thread is right-shifting compared to the other. You're still weaseling on whether you were right or not in this thread while you've admitted you were wrong in the other thread. Hey, if you don't like being a small-minded, easily manipulated idiot, then do something about it. Why don't you start with the realization that YOU CAN BE WRONG! And that you can ADMIT it. That's what makes you so easy to toy with. You cannot admit that you were wrong. Instead you have to abuse semantics to get to a position that you can blame on me. Sorry, dude. You were wrong. B&J did NOT give money to "free" any "cop killer". That is a fact. You were wrong. Now you're arguing over whether B&J's "ethics" are the same as someone who signed a petition in support of another trial for a convicted cop killer. Why? Ethics are NOTHING without actions. And there have been NO actions from B&J in support of him. But that does NOT MATTER TO >YOU<! Because you HAVE TO BE RIGHT! Whatever. You'll eventually right-shift this to the point where you will accuse me of being immature and then you'll run away again. And you will not have learned anything. I'll lure you again. And again. And again.
Post #29,056 by boxley 2/20/02 11:29:22 AM Reply	say what? legally B&J is distinct from Ben and Gerry individuals. Why are corporations formed? to protect individuals from personal liability. B&J protects Ben and Gerry from actions taken by B&J the company=Ben and Gerry the individual shield B&J the company from personal liability. One of the individual's likes cop killers!=B&J likes cop killers B&J as an artificially created legal entity cannot like or dislike anything, it is amoral. Ben and Gerry (whichever one contributed) is immoral (for sake of argument) the company being amoral is being run by immoral amoral(neutral(0))+immoral=? punt thanx, bill "I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog." Richard Eaton spy software innovator
Post #29,063 by Brandioch 2/20/02 11:51:11 AM Reply	Um, okay. "What". Practially complete agreement right up to the end.... amoral(neutral(0))+immoral=? As this assumes only one person has influence in that company and is completely immoral. Which brings us back to my earlier statement that a corporation allows lots of people to do a little "evil" (or "good") and results in the corporation doing a LOT of "evil" (or "good"). In other words: amoral(neutral(0))+((total "evil" actions by employees)+(total "good" actions by employees))=? Corrections?
Post #29,065 by boxley 2/20/02 11:53:33 AM Reply	thats fine "I'm selling a hammer," he says. "They can beat nails with it, or their dog." Richard Eaton spy software innovator
Post #29,059 by drewk 2/20/02 11:46:46 AM 2/20/02 11:47:52 AM Reply	Are you even trying anymore? [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=29051\|Your words] You're still weaseling on whether you were right or not in this thread while you've admitted you were wrong in the other thread. Hey, if you don't like being a small-minded, easily manipulated idiot, then do something about it. Why don't you start with the realization that YOU CAN BE WRONG! And that you can ADMIT it. That's what makes you so easy to toy with. You cannot admit that you were wrong. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman] Edited by drewk Feb. 20, 2002, 11:47:52 AM EST Expand All History
Post #29,070 by Brandioch 2/20/02 12:12:50 PM Reply	Clarification. As I stated in an earlier post, Bill will admit he's wrong on one point, if he thinks he can get me on another point. Which was why I was feeding him the lure about a re-trial. Once I told him that was a lure, he switched back to his standard abuse of semantics to show that he was "right" when he said that B&J's ethics support a cop killer (through monetary donations). To rephrase, Bill can only admit he's "wrong" if he can show that I am "more wrong". If he cannot show that I am "more wrong", then he will abuse semantics to show that he is "right". Again, Bill admitted he was wrong in the other thread (when he thought he could catch me on something else) but denies he is wrong in this thread (where he cannot catch me on something else). Similar to the tax thing. Sales taxes are regressive but sales taxes are progressive (accourding to Bill). Do you care to address that, yet?
Post #29,170 by bepatient 2/21/02 8:21:58 AM Reply	Sure... ...but, you know, the first step to recovery is recognition. Your lack of understanding of my position is not my problem. The "other" situation is also your problem. Because you are using terminology over intention. Its the same tactic you have used in many debates here. Use charged language make the discussion into more than it is. Then claim "victory" because the point has grown beyond the first post. Also not my problem. You call my thought process binary...yet you continue to try and force my position into "Its either A or B". So, you see, we're back to the first line in my post. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!