I don’t think papa john is a greedy bastard any more than I am when I make business decisions that sometimes put people out of work and sometimes create jobs. Its not my intent to create jobs or put people out of work, its a by product of me trying to maximize my own welfare.
I think papa john is a partisan asshole who will hurt people not because he is making a rational business decision but because he is butthurt about his guy losing the election. I don’t know for sure what’s in his head but if there was any way to tell conclusively what was in his head, I would bet a significant amount of money that the election has more to do with this decision than obamacare.
Um, no. A person who seeks more than what he’s entitled to is a thief. Greed has to be measured within the realm of entitlement. It’s purely subjective, so we won’t find one definition.
I’m perfectly willing to accept the bar being placed at wherever government intervenes. That is, after all, the way we as a society express our collective will – through the passage of laws.
The thing about Bricker’s claim that charity is not required is that it violates his own stated belief to be a Catholic, since Catholicism, like all other forms of Christianity, teaches that charity is required. Those who don’t give to the poor don’t go to heaven.
As pointed out earlier, he also discounts his own church’s definition of greed, which does specifically mean serving Mammon and not God. It means putting money in front of other things.
Bricker’s claim to be a Catholic is why I hold him to this higher standard, and why I get so furious when he makes these claims. At least atheists can claim that helping other people is not their moral responsibility. He can’t lest he risk sending his own soul to hell.
I don’t see how the hell he’s won anything. The only thing that gets people to give to charity is the idea that it is the right thing to do. By saying it is optional, he removes any reason for anyone to ever give to charity, just like Ayn Rand did. But at least Rand was an atheist.
I guess, maybe if you count winning as “last person to speak,” but why the hell would a board devoted to fighting ignorance do that? In any debate, it is your responsibility to try and argue against the points made before agreeing with them (which is what a win means). If I can come up with something, surely you guys who love debating so much you’re in this forum 24/7 could have.
The original rules specify 5 days. But since we’re not paying attention to those, I’ll go along with the 2 hours. Actually, how about 30 minutes or less?
Not with the word selfish. That’s one of the things charity helps alleviate, since charity is usually a selfless act. (Exceptions for those who do it for good PR. Which, BTW, only works because people think charity is moral, in case you think I’m waffling.)
I think you have an unworkably narrow definition of greed.
When people talk about what caused the financial crisis, the best one word answer is greed. I know charity had nothing to do with it but you can be greedy even if you aren’t stealing or taking stuff that isn’t yours… based on the rules we have in place.
Although there are many actions that while not illegal deserve societal opproborium. Having an affair is not illegal, nor should it be, but I think that is not incorrect to say that someone who leaves his loyal wife of 15 years for a secretary half his age objectively indicates that he a bad husband according to societal norms. Similarly the first amendment grants the right for a person to scream that “all niggers are trash and a drain on the white race”, but I feel that such actions objectively indicate that such a person is a racist according to societal norms Papa John has the legal right to set hours and prices as he wants but still his actions objectively indicate that he is greedy according to societal norms.
By the way Bricker I didn’t read the whole previous thread so I may have missed it if you stated your position explicitly, but regardless of whether Papa John can be objectively declared greedy or not, is Papa John greedy according to your personal opinion.
ETA:
It seems to me that the SDMB Pit falls much more in the direction of scoial gathering than it does legal context, so why is your legal wrangling relevant?
So I think you’ll agree that the SDMB is not a legal hearing, and is more of a social gathering, yes? I mean, nobody here has been trying to find the CEO legally guilty of being a greedy fuck.
So this is a bit of a red herring, nes pas? Why do you even bring the legal stuff up?
