ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 30th July 2018, 04:40 AM   #121
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,163
Originally Posted by ZirconBlue View Post
It's not a question of "moralising", it's knowing when your money is directly going to fund politics. If they agree with your politics, that's great, but, if they are counter to your beliefs, I'm surprised you don't care that you're funding policies you oppose.

I don't care how good something is, if I find out they're using the money I gave them to fund, say, white supremacy groups, I will stop giving them money. They can spend their money how they like, but I'm not going to give them even more money to do so.
My money isn't directly going to fund politics. It's indirectly going to fund politics, and that difference matters.

If I find out my local baker reads books from an author I disagree with, I'm not going to find a new baker because I don't want my money supporting that author. I think what books he reads is none of my business.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2018, 04:45 AM   #122
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,163
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
We live in a world where money is power. The power to donate to lobbyists and political campaigns. the power to buy land and change the environment. It goes on and on.

If pro-market boosters are to be believed, we select the world we want by voting with our dollars. If we ignore the externalities of those economic votes and only look at whether we think the pizza is tasty, we're going to get a world we may not like so much.

Obviously we can't track every possible externality of every purchase we make. And it would probably be nearly prohibitively difficult to live life without contributing some money to something ugly. But at the very least when a difference is clear, and the cost of a different decision is low, you're casting a vote.
There's a difference between direct actions that a business takes in doing business and the ways that the owners of that business spend their profits. I'm happy to choose which businesses I frequent based on the negative externalities of their business decisions. If Papa John's treated customers of different races differently I'd certainly think calls to boycott them made sense. But that's very different than the owner being racist.

I think our society is making a big mistake to try to police people's free time with our outrage.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2018, 05:24 AM   #123
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,576
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
My money isn't directly going to fund politics. It's indirectly going to fund politics, and that difference matters.

If I find out my local baker reads books from an author I disagree with, I'm not going to find a new baker because I don't want my money supporting that author. I think what books he reads is none of my business.
Life's too short to police such trifle things. But would you give business to a company owned by the Koch brothers, knowing that they've been pouring billions of dollars into very-right-wing to extreme-right-wing causes, like the Tea Party?
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2018, 12:45 PM   #124
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 22,362
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
There's a difference between direct actions that a business takes in doing business and the ways that the owners of that business spend their profits. I'm happy to choose which businesses I frequent based on the negative externalities of their business decisions. If Papa John's treated customers of different races differently I'd certainly think calls to boycott them made sense. But that's very different than the owner being racist.

I think our society is making a big mistake to try to police people's free time with our outrage.

If what I want is a Papa John's pizza, then that's what I'd get.

If there is an alternative that is equally appealing then something like this might be enough to swing the choice away from them.

That isn't much in the larger scheme of things.

But the company has to consider that such choices can add up, and weigh that against the benefits of hanging onto that one guy in the face of all the negative publicity. In the larger scheme of things that can matter.

CEO's come and go all the time, for reasons far more trivial. Despite the oversized paychecks they get, they just aren't that irreplaceable.

And I find it hard to shed tears for that CEO. He isn't going to end up on a bread line. (Even though if the company loses enough business some of the employees might.) I see it as part of the responsibility that oversize paycheck carries with it. It falls into the realm of "You had one job to do, man. One job." He made himself the face of the company. One job, and he blew it.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:20 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.