All your guns are belong in this thread.

Eriol

Eriol

figmentPez said:
While this may be standard practice, I'm talking about ethics and morality, not legality. There are many things which are legal, but that still grossly violate ethics and morality.

Secondly, as you've stated it, such an idea of fiduciary duty would compel people to break the law to fulfill "fiduciary duty". It's an absurd notion that businesses should exist for the sole purpose of making as much money as possible, above and beyond all other interests. It's quite arguable that most businesses do pursue money to that absurd degree, but that's because most people have bought into the idea that such is the ideal form of business. Not only do I challenge that notion, but I firmly reject it, morally and ethically. It should never be accepted, it should never be repeated, and any suggestion that is is inevitable should be shouted down with all the fervor the human race can muster. We are not doomed to be thieves, and we cannot allow ourselves to resign ourselves to institutionalized greed.
Click to expand...
Pez, there have been legal cases by shareholders that sue boards and/or CEOs because they don't take their Fiduciary Duty seriously. And they WIN. The law is structured that way. The law can't compel you to break the law (IANAL, but pretty sure that'd be stupid), but anything and everything else is A-OK to the limits of public reputation, and its impact on profits.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for this corporate attitude, I actually agree that businesses should be more than that. But that is the law as it is right now. Change the law if you want that to change, don't blame the people for following it.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
If someone knowingly takes advantage of someone (i.e. They intentionally conduct what they know to be an unfair exchange of goods and or services), that's a scam. Scam: to swindle, cheat, defraud, to obtain by deceit. Put it however you want, if someone knows that they are unfairly taking advantage of someone else, they are a crook.
Click to expand...
We're arguing semantics here (Scam/Fraud = obtain by deceit, Monopoly/Monopsony = obtain by abusing marketplace position, Regulatory capture = obtain by changing the rules, etc), but it seems we are in agreement that businesses should conduct themselves in a manner that prioritizes not only their own well-being, but also the well-being of the ones who use the goods and services they provide.

I mean, you figure it would just be good business sense to ensure the existence of a customer base to consume the goods and services you provide, right?
...with ONE exception, of course. That being, should it come to pass that a business' goods/services are no longer required, it should willingly go gently into that good night, and not seek to artificially prolong its existence/relevance.

--Patrick
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

Eriol said:
Change the law if you want that to change, don't blame the people for following it.
Click to expand...

That's why i always reported the jews to the local authorities back in the '40s... it vas the law.

Yeah, i'm pretty sure i can do both...
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Eriol said:
Pez, there have been legal cases by shareholders that sue boards and/or CEOs because they don't take their Fiduciary Duty seriously. And they WIN. The law is structured that way. The law can't compel you to break the law (IANAL, but pretty sure that'd be stupid), but anything and everything else is A-OK to the limits of public reputation, and its impact on profits.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for this corporate attitude, I actually agree that businesses should be more than that. But that is the law as it is right now. Change the law if you want that to change, don't blame the people for following it.
Click to expand...
I will fucking blame people for following unjust laws. Doing what is morally and ethnically right comes before obedience to the law, PERIOD. I'll sympathize with people who are afraid to break the law because they're not in positions of power, but CEOs are in huge positions of power, and they have crazy amounts of money and influence. They have the moral and ethical responsibility to challenge the law and do what is right.

You've just admitted that there are higher responsibilities than how you interpret Fiduciary Duty (hell, that wikipedia article you linked says there are higher responsibilities). You've said the law comes before. You're not allowed to break the law. Breaking the law would surely make more money, and in fact a lot of companies knowingly break the law because the fines they pay are less than the money they make breaking the law. We know that a CEO could never be sued by refusing to commit wage theft, despite how lucrative such an action is.

To quote the Wiki you linked to, "far from being a barrier, there are positive duties to integrate environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors in investment processes." I'm not the only person who thinks that businesses have a responsibility to more than just money.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
PatrThom said:
I mean, you figure it would just be good business sense to ensure the existence of a customer base to consume the goods and services you provide, right?
Click to expand...
You'd think so, but "trickle down economics" is still a thing people fight to believe in. I try not to underestimate the number of people who are willfully ignorant, and the violent reactions they have to the truth being thrust upon them.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

I regret that I have but one OMGWTFBBQ to give to that post.

Also...isn't having a handgun illegal in New York City? Maybe the one on the left was from a cop, but the one on the right doesn't look like it. I can't imagine you're allowed to take guns into the Pentagon either.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
blotsfan said:
I regret that I have but one OMGWTFBBQ to give to that post.

Also...isn't having a handgun illegal in New York City? Maybe the one on the left was from a cop, but the one on the right doesn't look like it. I can't imagine you're allowed to take guns into the Pentagon either.
Click to expand...
The one on the right looks to be a 38 snub nose, which is a common "backup piece" for law enforcement.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

My biggest complaint about the picture is the caption, which praises these two objects and yet makes no (real) attempt to honor the individual(s) who must've wielded them.

--Patrick
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Bubble181 said:
So..."Even a Good Guy with a Gun who acts quickly and efficiently can't protect you"? Well, gosh, it's almost like simply no guns for either good or bad guys would've been a better idea :p
Click to expand...
Well, break out the magic wands that will eliminate 393 million guns from private ownership, making sure that they get every last one that someone with criminal intent might hoard!

And then we can get ready to REALLY bend over and take it in the ass from President For Life Donald J Trump, since there will then be absolutely literally nothing at all to stop him from really turning the US into the fascist police state you guys quaintly think he already has.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
Well, break out the magic wands that will eliminate 393 million guns from private ownership, making sure that they get every last one that someone with criminal intent might hoard!

And then we can get ready to REALLY bend over and take it in the ass from President For Life Donald J Trump, since there will then be absolutely literally nothing at all to stop him from really turning the US into the fascist police state you guys quaintly think he already has.
Click to expand...
A) I did specifically say "would've" - that ship has long since sailed for the good ol' US of A.
B) Like President For Life Macron, Johnson, and others? Or in comparison to Turkey, where Erdogan *is* busily turning himself into a dictator for life, despite the Turks owning plenty of guns (third highest in Europe after Finland and Switzerland, per capita)?
 
DarkAudit

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
Well, break out the magic wands that will eliminate 393 million guns from private ownership, making sure that they get every last one that someone with criminal intent might hoard!

And then we can get ready to REALLY bend over and take it in the ass from President For Life Donald J Trump, since there will then be absolutely literally nothing at all to stop him from really turning the US into the fascist police state you guys quaintly think he already has.
Click to expand...
Lest you forget, HE was the only president thus far to actually advocate for taking all yer gunz.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

DarkAudit said:
Lest you forget, HE was the only president thus far to actually advocate for taking all yer gunz.
Click to expand...
It was more like, “Take away all your guns unless you’re one of us, then it’s totally covfefe.”
But yeah, I ain’t gonna forget.

—Patrick
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

figmentPez said:
Tell me, how is a "good guy with a gun" supposed to have prevented this death?
Click to expand...
By shooting people who discharge their guns for fun?!

That would certainly not lead to any issues.


GasBandit said:
And then we can get ready to REALLY bend over and take it in the ass from President For Life Donald J Trump, since there will then be absolutely literally nothing at all to stop him from really turning the US into the fascist police state you guys quaintly think he already has.
Click to expand...

I really like the implication that the "2A people" would oppose those actions.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
@Li3n said:
I really like the implication that the "2A people" would oppose those actions.
Click to expand...
Well, I mean, guns don't have to just be for rednecks. Nothing's stopping all the hippies and commies from getting all the AR-15s they want... for now.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
Well, I mean, guns don't have to just be for rednecks. Nothing's stopping all the hippies and commies from getting all the AR-15s they want... for now.
Click to expand...
I feel like there’s an editorial cartoon in there, with a Hippie-type in a checkout lane complaining about “...all these ‘Gun-grabbers,’” and then behind him and in the other lanes waiting their turns are a bunch of Redneck and Jarhead types with their (red baseball caps and) carts bristling with long guns and ammunition.

—Patrick
 
@Li3n

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Well, I mean, guns don't have to just be for rednecks. Nothing's stopping all the hippies and commies from getting all the AR-15s they want... for now.
Click to expand...
As long as they're not black, amirite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

That's how i know Dems aren't serious about effective gun control, if they where they'd just have some black and latino people (and hippies and commies) do armed protests, and they'd get bipartisan gun control laws passed no problemo..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top