Careful, boys. It may look like a harmless blobfish, but if you get too close and it thinks it smells food, it’ll latch on with its jaws and never let go.
I mean “useful, cleanly stateable general principles.”
Even without fully general principles, anyway, you can still have typical cases and atypical cases.
No. I was giving one case in which I would work guilt free at an avowedly evil corporation. For one thing, Chick Fil A isn’t an avowedly evil corporation. For another thing, I do not claim that “needing to make ends meet” is necessary for it to be okay to work in a low level position at an avowedly evil corporation. You simply asked whether I’d work at one. The answer is yes. If you want to be more specific, you’ll need to be more specific.
Maybe she’s just waiting for her trust fund to kick in, or is a Hollywood star in disguise going undercover to prepare for a role, or she is a replican, or has a drive through order taking fetish. There are just so many possibilities.
It would seem so, but actually it’s not.
There’s a fundamental difference between being able to exercise your right to boycott a product you may like and bought as a luxury, but decline to purchase anymore based on some conflicting moral/ethical principle(s) between you and the holders of that product – and being held hostage by a resource/commodity monopolized by an organization that would profoundly effect your livelyhood on an individual level and the economy on a national/international level if you decided to boycott without a much more organized and solidified political base to have any altruistic (or even self-serving) effect.*
But, brazil84 is too fucking dense – nay! sparse actually – to see that.
*Yes, I know there are alternatives to fossil fuels, but the infrastructure is not here yet, and pretty much impossible to avoid without accepting major lifestyle changes, such as living off the grid, and off of the land.
Things don’t have to be perfectly logical to be funny though. Hell, most comedy is probably based on not being totally logical for that matter.
I understand that, of course.
Still, while even I chuckled, I wouldn’t look nearly as smug as Willy Wonka does in that meme, as I’m sure b84 does right now, if I were using it as an actual argument.
ETA, Hint: Illogic is b84’s MO.
Sure, it’s also possible that the fast-food joint down the street is hiring. Or that she lives with her parents and works this job just for extra money to spend on clothing.
Lots of possibilities.
I like this response better: The Chick-On-Chick sandwich.
I’m not sure what your point is here, but perhaps it will help if I restate the question a bit differently:
Under what circumstances does an employee of an evil corporation or institution deserve criticism for voluntarily serving as an employee of an evil corporation or institution?
Please tell me your general principle as best you can. Or are you saying that the question is impossible to answer?
Ok, so if a person is knowingly working for an evil corporation and has some degree of choice about it, then they deserve criticism?
I agree with you, but you are confusing my first original question – whether Chick Fil A is evil – with my second original question – whether it is reasonable to berate low-level employees assuming for the sake of argument that the employer is evil.
Probably it’s not necessary. Can I take it there are circumstances under which you would NOT knowingly work for an evil corporation, for example if you had plenty of other choices in order to make ends meet?
Looks like the U of A is distancing themselves from Mr. Smith too.
I’ll bet his name becomes synonymous with a one step career ending fuck up. How long before Adam Smith makes it to the Urban Dictionary with the above definition?
Why is it that mockery seems much more effective than smugness?
nm
Mm, I don’t know. I think the intolerance of the anti-equality set was already pretty clear. I mean, it’s kind of definitional. On the other hand, the stories generated on the pro-equality side (the politicians, vandals and threats, assholes like this guy) are showing their stupidity and hypocrisy. I’m sure Chick-fil-A is on the losing side of thethe war, in the long run–simply publicizing their stance should have hurt them–but I’m not so sure that the IRL manifestations of this particular skirmish are helping.
Your patronizing pontifications notwithstanding, the shit was brilliant because it’s funny as hell.
It is fucking funny, but believe me when I say b84 is really, and I mean actually using that as an argument.
Patronizing and pontifical how, exactly? I spoke my fucking mind on b84’s bullshit.
Because mockery shows the stupidity of your targets ideas. Smugness just makes you look like you think you are right because you are righter/smarter/better/more smug.
People usually go with the smug.
“Your ideas are stupid because of X reasons” is a much more convincing method than “I’m better than you”.
Zactly.
Uh, I don’t think so. While you’re correct in that the issue came to the fore, the pro SSM crowd came off looking like douches. From public officials how think they have the power to keep businesses out due to a religious stance and the Adam Smith. For right now, they are the spokespeople. I wouldn’t call that a success if I were you.
It doesn’t matter. History will look on those outspokenly against same-sex marriage in the same light as those that were supportive for any other form of civil injustice; as fucking assholes.
Yeah, whatever you say. But your civil injustice is bullshit. If “civil injustice” were the real cause, civil unions would be the logical and happy median.