All your guns are belong in this thread.

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.
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.
 
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.
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
 
Change the law if you want that to change, don't blame the people for following it.

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

Staff member
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.
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

Staff member
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?
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.
 
It's funny because that in no way tells you anything about the reference being salient or not...

But do you think anyone would get it if i mentioned reporting people with glasses during the '70's...
But that was Pol Pot's law.
 
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

Staff member
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.
The one on the right looks to be a 38 snub nose, which is a common "backup piece" for law enforcement.
 
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

Staff member
Well, a Good Guy With A Gun would have known better than to idiotically shoot randomly into the air in the first place.

--Patrick
Or, I guess, by shooting the idiots before they could kill somebody with their dumb shit.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
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
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.
 
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.
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)?
 
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.
Lest you forget, HE was the only president thus far to actually advocate for taking all yer gunz.
 
Lest you forget, HE was the only president thus far to actually advocate for taking all yer gunz.
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
 
Tell me, how is a "good guy with a gun" supposed to have prevented this death?
By shooting people who discharge their guns for fun?!

That would certainly not lead to any issues.


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.

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

GasBandit

Staff member
I really like the implication that the "2A people" would oppose those actions.
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.
 
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.
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
 
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.
Well, when that dickhead in Washington said NeoNazis are good people, I bought an AR-15.
 
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.
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..
 
Top