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.
