What if corporations aren't evil?

[Quantum Windbag]

Dont enlighten them. You will feel their wrath.

Bfgrn couldn't enlighten a broom closet if he had 25 million candlepower spotlight, all he can do is cut and paste other people's arguments and contradict himself.

Is this another one of your rules you make up when getting your argument trashed? What does cutting and pasting have to do with how invalid your argument is?

That entire post is a cut and paste from the link he provided coupled with a repeat of the exact same links he has been posting since the first day he got here. If you don't believe me, follow it and read it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"la la la" indeed.

Perfect.

The mark of a good little partisan ideologue.

As I said -- if you had a point you'd be able to make it. All you have is strawman.
Dismissed.

Pogo negged me.



Good little partisan ideologue.

.

Negging is against the rules in the CDZ.

Ain't life grand?

 

[FA_Q2]

Not only do we already have that but the really good news is they work hand in glove; when you've put some time in with Monsanto you can come run the Ag Department that regulates your former employer. Then you can go back and hook up your old friends with your new ones.

One stop shopping. Ain't it grand?

(Note: above is sarcasm)

Why do some of y'all continue to pretend this is not the way it works?

Who pretends that? You and those that think like you are the ones always demand ting that grater and grater government control is not only necessary but so much better than the alternative. now, here you are, admitting that it is not.

Uhhhhh..... where have I ever said anything remotely like that?

Are you taking cues from QW and his fiction? Hell, I've been saying the same thing the whole time I've been here, and way before.

So back this up -- quote where I've demanded "greater and greater government control". Or admit you just brought in a strawman.

We have been around this train before Pogo. Do you not remember the threads that we have debated in like the trans-fat thread? Perhaps the abolish the FCC thread? Or any number of other threads where you and I have been around this subject.

Whenever there is increasing governmental regulations or control that I am debating against you are here supporting it. It’s not a straw man and if you are not going to admit the myriad of times that you have backed government expansion and control then there is little likelihood that you are going to own up to it. I don’t think I have seen you on this forum actually call for any regulation or expansion to be rolled back.

 

[KissMy]

There is a lot of evil in Monsanto Corp & they run government & you.

[youtube]AvL9dKH5KeQ[/youtube]

 

[SmedlyButler]

To start with your OP title is somewhat misleading. Just because Monsanto may be right in claiming that as of now genetically modified foods show more positives than negatives that has nothing to do with the inherent morality of "corporatons". To anchor the argument in reality remember how the leaded gasoline industry defended itself for decades after it had been proven their product was poisoning the environment as well as people. And the tobacco industry, do I have to say more?

So gmo's are helping feed a hungry planet. Modifications for climate and shorter growing seasons are a proven boon. But some start to raise questions at these kind of modifications, "What are the desired traits? Most of the nation's corn and soybeans are genetically engineered to resist pesticides and herbicides." Some wonder if being able to flood the environment with more poison is such a good thing.

And why the big push-back against labeling. I think the general rule is "the more information the consumer has, the better."

If GMO's are so safe why do mega-food corporations oppose labelling to the point;

"In Congress, the food industry is pushing a House bill that would head off efforts to enact mandatory labeling of genetically modified ingredients by proposing new voluntary labels nationwide -- an attempted end run around the state-by-state laws."

We're right not to trust the word of Corporations, I think the Author of your article caved a little too quickly.

If you want answers to your questions about labeling, feel free to actually read the linked blog post, or go through the thread. If you prefer to pretend that the fact that they are against something that sounds simple t you proves they are hiding something, don't bother with either.

But I actually did read the linked blog post and I have followed the issue for years. The Corporations and their Lobbyists are experts at spin, they've been in the game, and controlling it, for many many decades. Taking them at their word... well, if you're a bible believer, think Satan whispering in Eve's ear.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To start with your OP title is somewhat misleading. Just because Monsanto may be right in claiming that as of now genetically modified foods show more positives than negatives that has nothing to do with the inherent morality of "corporatons". To anchor the argument in reality remember how the leaded gasoline industry defended itself for decades after it had been proven their product was poisoning the environment as well as people. And the tobacco industry, do I have to say more?

So gmo's are helping feed a hungry planet. Modifications for climate and shorter growing seasons are a proven boon. But some start to raise questions at these kind of modifications, "What are the desired traits? Most of the nation's corn and soybeans are genetically engineered to resist pesticides and herbicides." Some wonder if being able to flood the environment with more poison is such a good thing.

And why the big push-back against labeling. I think the general rule is "the more information the consumer has, the better."

If GMO's are so safe why do mega-food corporations oppose labelling to the point;

"In Congress, the food industry is pushing a House bill that would head off efforts to enact mandatory labeling of genetically modified ingredients by proposing new voluntary labels nationwide -- an attempted end run around the state-by-state laws."

We're right not to trust the word of Corporations, I think the Author of your article caved a little too quickly.

If you want answers to your questions about labeling, feel free to actually read the linked blog post, or go through the thread. If you prefer to pretend that the fact that they are against something that sounds simple t you proves they are hiding something, don't bother with either.

But I actually did read the linked blog post and I have followed the issue for years. The Corporations and their Lobbyists are experts at spin, they've been in the game, and controlling it, for many many decades. Taking them at their word... well, if you're a bible believer, think Satan whispering in Eve's ear.

Funny thing, none of the links I posted came from corporations, lobbyists, or anything you just mentioned, yet you ignored them anyway.

 

[SmedlyButler]

If corporation aren't evil, then absolutely nothing changes. Because we already live in a world where they aren't evil.

Do you even understand the concept of evil? I'm sorry but this calls for a rather long copy and paste. From Listverse




1)In 2002, Monsanto was convicted of dumping tens of thousands of pounds of PCBs into the waterways of Anniston, Alabama, before lying about it for years. This led to the highest concentrations of the toxic pollutant ever recorded in history. Monsanto’s view on the situation was, “We can’t afford to lose a dollar of profit” (that’s a real quote).

2)In the four years between 1996 and 2000, companies in the US exported a little over a billion pounds of chemical pesticides to third-world countries. That’s not really a big deal, but this is: Most of those pesticides were banned in the US because they were known carcinogens—but through a loophole, it’s still legal to manufacture and export them, as long as they’re not being used in the country.

3)In 2009, something strange was discovered in the water near Patancheru, India—high concentrations of over 21 different pharmaceutical drugs were mixed in with the town’s water supply. As it turned out, these drugs were being dumped in the stream by the many factories in the region—factories owned by US pharmaceutical companies. In particular, one factory was dumping 100 pounds of an antibiotic called ciprofloxacin into the stream—per day. This is the town’s only water source, providing everything from drinking water to a place to bathe.
4)You may recognize Bayer as the maker of Aspirin. They’re one of the top pharmaceutical companies in the world. In 1984, they discovered that one of the products they were selling—a medicine to induce blood clotting—was infecting people with H.I.V. So like any responsible company, they stopped marketing it and developed a safer medicine—right before exporting all of the contaminated medicine to Asia and Latin America, where it continued to be sold. They even continued making the H.I.V. infected medicine for another few months, because it was cheaper to produce than the new version—this was again sold straight to developing countries.

5)It started in the 1970s, when Rio Tinto was discovered to have been running illegal uranium mines in Nambia, and using the profits to support the apartheid government in South Africa—in return, the government allowed Rio Tinto to keep operating in the area. Additionally, Rio Tinto maintained its own private mercenary army to keep blacks from rising up against them and the government. Oh and also, the uranium mines used “brutal slave labor,” in the words of the United Nations Council that dealt with the matter.

6)Siemens is an electronics manufacturer that makes everything from car parts to vacuum cleaners—and, in times past, Nazi gas chambers. If you’ve ever wondered who was willing to take the job of building the group-sized hydrogen cyanide chambers used in Auschwitz, now you know. They were also immersed in building the infamous train system of Nazi-era Germany, the Reichsbahn, which transported Jews to the concentration camps.And it’s not as if they were on the fringe of the war—Siemens funded the Nazi Party during the 1930′s and actively supported Hitler’s regime once the war broke out. They had more than 400 factories operating throughout Germany by late 1944, many of which used Jewish labor.

7) Monsanto needs no introduction, but we’ll do it quickly anyway: They’re a pesticide manufacturer known for being the first company to genetically modify a seed to be resistant to pesticides and herbicides. Their seeds are billed as “Roundup-Ready,” meaning that it’s the only thing that will stay alive in a field that’s been sprayed with Roundup, Monsanto’s main herbicide product.This led the movement towards genetically modified crops—food crops that are bigger, grow faster, and can be literally doused in chemicals and not die. Now, aside from the fact that GMO crops are largely untested except for this study where rats on an 11 percent GM corn diet were six times more likely to die, Monsanto itself is, well, fairly unethical.In 2002, Monsanto was convicted of dumping tens of thousands of pounds of PCBs into the waterways of Anniston, Alabama, before lying about it for years. This led to the highest concentrations of the toxic pollutant ever recorded in history. Monsanto’s view on the situation was, “We can’t afford to lose a dollar of profit” (that’s a real quote).

8)American Cyanamid Co. In the four years between 1996 and 2000, companies in the US exported a little over a billion pounds of chemical pesticides to third-world countries. That’s not really a big deal, but this is: Most of those pesticides were banned in the US because they were known carcinogens—but through a loophole, it’s still legal to manufacture and export them, as long as they’re not being used in the country.As a result, over 350 million agricultural workers in areas like Africa and Central America are put in contact with these chemicals, only, through another loophole, they’re not told about the small fact that without the proper gear they have a very good chance of dying. So you end up with a situation like this plantation in Costa Rica that was sold a pesticide called Counter by American Cyanamid Co.A quick fact about Counter: The chemical in it is an organophosphate—that’s what they used to make nerve gas before WWII. Counter is only approved for handling if you’re wearing gloves, a face mask, and eye protection. The uninformed Costa Rican farmers, on the other hand, worked shirtless and spread the pesticide with their bare hands. Some of them even used full bags of Counter as pillows at night. After a few days, the workers were literally vomiting blood and foaming at the mouth from the toxins that had worked into their bodies.And it’s still happening everyday. Companies like American Cyanamid and Chevron Chemical Co. export about 10 million pounds of these chemicals out of the country each month—to areas that provide approximately a quarter of the produce sold in America, freshly dusted with illegal pesticides.

9)Various Pharmaceutical Companies
In 2009, something strange was discovered in the water near Patancheru, India—high concentrations of over 21 different pharmaceutical drugs were mixed in with the town’s water supply. As it turned out, these drugs were being dumped in the stream by the many factories in the region—factories owned by US pharmaceutical companies. In particular, one factory was dumping 100 pounds of an antibiotic called ciprofloxacin into the stream—per day. This is the town’s only water source, providing everything from drinking water to a place to bathe.Pharmaceutical waste like this has been discovered in the US as well, and it’s estimated that about 46 million Americans’ tap water contains traces of pharmaceutical drugs in varying concentrations. Based on where the drugs have been found, EPA officials believe that it’s coming from illegal dumping by nearby factories. How evil is this? Aside from its effect on wildlife (stunted growth), we don’t really know what kind of effect small quantities of dozens of combined drugs will have on people. But it can’t be that good.

10) You may recognize Bayer as the maker of Aspirin. They’re one of the top pharmaceutical companies in the world. In 1984, they discovered that one of the products they were selling—a medicine to induce blood clotting—was infecting people with H.I.V. So like any responsible company, they stopped marketing it and developed a safer medicine—right before exporting all of the contaminated medicine to Asia and Latin America, where it continued to be sold. They even continued making the H.I.V. infected medicine for another few months, because it was cheaper to produce than the new version—this was again sold straight to developing countries.Six thousand people in the US were known to have contracted H.I.V. and AIDS from the medicine—but how many died from the tainted medicine overseas? At least 100,000 units of the medication made their way to Asia and Argentina after Bayer stopped selling it in America.

11) Rio Tinto is a mining company that operates mostly out of Africa, and you can probably already see where this is going. As the biggest private mining company in the world, they provide much of the world’s raw aluminum and copper—along with uranium, gold, and diamonds—and might have the worst track record for human rights violations ever (which, on this list, is kind of a big deal).It started in the 1970s, when Rio Tinto was discovered to have been running illegal uranium mines in Nambia, and using the profits to support the apartheid government in South Africa—in return, the government allowed Rio Tinto to keep operating in the area. Additionally, Rio Tinto maintained its own private mercenary army to keep blacks from rising up against them and the government. Oh and also, the uranium mines used “brutal slave labor,” in the words of the United Nations Council that dealt with the matter.But far from getting shut down, Rio Tinto went on to bludgeon humanity and the environment further at every turn. In 1981, it turned out that one of their Canadian uranium mines had been exposing workers for years to radiation levels more than seven times the legal limit. In Indonesia, they have tortured and killed opponents of their gold mines. And in 2000, an ex-security guard at their gold mine in Brazil revealed that security workers were urged to use violence to keep the miners complacent. It’s basically modern-day slavery.

12)Siemens is an electronics manufacturer that makes everything from car parts to vacuum cleaners—and, in times past, Nazi gas chambers. If you’ve ever wondered who was willing to take the job of building the group-sized hydrogen cyanide chambers used in Auschwitz, now you know. They were also immersed in building the infamous train system of Nazi-era Germany, the Reichsbahn, which transported Jews to the concentration camps.And it’s not as if they were on the fringe of the war—Siemens funded the Nazi Party during the 1930′s and actively supported Hitler’s regime once the war broke out. They had more than 400 factories operating throughout Germany by late 1944, many of which used Jewish labor.But that’s old news; these days, they’ve moved on to more modern endeavors like spearheading a worldwide electronics cartel, bribing government officials, and bribing the entire country of Greece.4
13)Wal-Mart isn’t exactly a poster-child for workers’ rights. Besides running sweatshops in China and refusing to hire women, they’ve also been pegged with nearly 250 cases of hiring illegal workers to clean their stores, forcing them to work seven days a week and locking them in the stores at night.And then there’s the small matter of possible human trafficking. One of Wal-Mart’s supply partners is the Phatthana Seafood Company, a shrimp processing plant in Thailand. The workers paid recruitment agents large sums of money for the opportunity to work, after which their passports were taken from them until they had worked long enough to pay off the debt. In a legal sense, that’s one of the criteria used to judge human trafficking cases.The workers are paid $8.48 per day, but the factory only runs an average of 14 days a month, so many of them have to resort to catching snails and tadpoles just to eat.

14)We've known about the dangers of asbestos since the 1940′s, even though it was still widely used as a building material until the late 70′s, when use began to decline. One of the major downsides of asbestos is its tendency to cause mesothelioma, a type of malignant cancer that coats the internal organs. Fast forward to 1987 and you have James Hardie, an Australian manufacturing company, continuing to operate asbestos factories across Victoria, Queensland, and Western Australia.James Hardie was the largest Australian producer of building materials around the time, and after thousands of cases of asbestos poisoning surfaced among its workers, an investigation was launched which found out that James Hardie was well aware of the dangers of asbestos, but continued to manufacture it anyway.But James Hardie was prepared for the virtual avalanche of lawsuits that followed in the early 2000′s. Here’s how it worked: Their business structure was set up so that only subsidiaries of the James Hardie parent corporation were connected to the asbestos work. When the pressure got too heavy, James Hardie began cutting off ties to these subsidiaries, leaving them to take the brunt of the lawsuits even though they didn’t have enough money to compensate all the victims. James Hardie then moved to the Netherlands, and is now denying the responsibility because “those other companies aren’t part of James Hardie.”Basically, they’ve dodged most of the responsibility as of 2012, while over 12,000 people have have been diagnosed with mesothelioma from their products.

 

[Asclepias]

Bfgrn couldn't enlighten a broom closet if he had 25 million candlepower spotlight, all he can do is cut and paste other people's arguments and contradict himself.

Is this another one of your rules you make up when getting your argument trashed? What does cutting and pasting have to do with how invalid your argument is?

That entire post is a cut and paste from the link he provided coupled with a repeat of the exact same links he has been posting since the first day he got here. If you don't believe me, follow it and read it.

Why would I do that? I could care less if it was cut and pasted. It still expresses the point pretty succinctly. The fact he repeated it does not make it less true.

 

[Mac1958]

As I said -- if you had a point you'd be able to make it. All you have is strawman.
Dismissed.

Pogo negged me.



Good little partisan ideologue.

.

Negging is against the rules in the CDZ.

Ain't life grand?

They get very emotional when you shove a mirror in their face.

.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Now that I have moment, a comment on Bfgrn's rambling post.

You (or whomever wrote it) appear to be making two points: First, an anti-Citizens United argument, and second, an argument that the Founding Fathers wanted a vice-like regulatory hand on corporations.

Guess what? I agree that corporations are not people, I'm against Citizens United. And second, as partisan ideologues do, you provided one side of the story on the role of corporations (from what I can tell, anyway - since I'm in the finance business I began nodding off at times). I find it ironic that a left winger would want to be so literal and unbending on the Constitution when in every other case you folks claim it's a living and breathing document.

Anyway, I'll get to my point far more quickly and clearly than you did. Uh, if you ever did:

You chose to focus (cut & paste) on just those two isolated points, ignoring/denying a world of obvious leftwing prejudice for government and against private business. Look at the posts on this board that refer to corporations. I would estimate the ratio of negative comments to positive comments are roughly 5,000:1. Look at the comments on this board that refer to the relationship between government and business. I would estimate the ratio of pro-government to pro-business comments are roughly 5,000:1. Look at the comments made by liberal politicians from coast to coast. Look at the hostile environment that has been created by this administration towards business. You far prefer the federal bureaucracy to private business. Just admit it.

But you will not. You will play these silly cut and paste games in some weird attempt to convince someone otherwise. You will not be honest. And this is why I have long since determined that trying to communicate with partisan ideologues is usually an abject waste of time. You're just not a serious person. Maybe you're not trying to be, maybe this is just a game, I don't know.

.

 

[bedowin62]

Well SOMEBODY has to be "evil";
or the Pandercrat Party cant survive

 

[Pogo]

Who pretends that? You and those that think like you are the ones always demand ting that grater and grater government control is not only necessary but so much better than the alternative. now, here you are, admitting that it is not.

Uhhhhh..... where have I ever said anything remotely like that?

Are you taking cues from QW and his fiction? Hell, I've been saying the same thing the whole time I've been here, and way before.

So back this up -- quote where I've demanded "greater and greater government control". Or admit you just brought in a strawman.

We have been around this train before Pogo. Do you not remember the threads that we have debated in like the trans-fat thread? Perhaps the abolish the FCC thread? Or any number of other threads where you and I have been around this subject.

Whenever there is increasing governmental regulations or control that I am debating against you are here supporting it. It’s not a straw man and if you are not going to admit the myriad of times that you have backed government expansion and control then there is little likelihood that you are going to own up to it. I don’t think I have seen you on this forum actually call for any regulation or expansion to be rolled back.

I remember the trans fats thread quite well. IIRC you were the last man standing in blind obeisance to the Randbot mantra in spite of all the evidence. In other words taking the same ideological tunnel vision position that would call for abolishing the FAA and letting planes just crash into each other on the basis of evil 'big gummint". The same wacko fringe folderol that would remove institutional water treatment and let us all drink straight out of the river and let cars crash into each other after the evil tyrrany of red lights and stop signs were vanquished by the heroic struggle of the people.

Please. That's basic institutional maintenance, not power for the sake of power. Part and parcel of "establish domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare". Nobody in the world believes Big Bad Gummint is stepping in to make your car stop at the intersection just so it can wield its power trip. This argument is frankly absurd. And if you really want to look silly we can go back and repost the randbot arguments that citizens have a "right to trans fats"

Remember Frances Kelsey? Want to go there again?

And as I pointed out repeatedly back in that thread, institutional regulation of the public commons is a centuries old necessity. You've still never heard me advocate centralized power for its own sake, and absolutely not on civil liberties. If this is your example it's a pretty pathetic stretch.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Uhhhhh..... where have I ever said anything remotely like that?

Are you taking cues from QW and his fiction? Hell, I've been saying the same thing the whole time I've been here, and way before.

So back this up -- quote where I've demanded "greater and greater government control". Or admit you just brought in a strawman.

We have been around this train before Pogo. Do you not remember the threads that we have debated in like the trans-fat thread? Perhaps the abolish the FCC thread? Or any number of other threads where you and I have been around this subject.

Whenever there is increasing governmental regulations or control that I am debating against you are here supporting it. It’s not a straw man and if you are not going to admit the myriad of times that you have backed government expansion and control then there is little likelihood that you are going to own up to it. I don’t think I have seen you on this forum actually call for any regulation or expansion to be rolled back.

I remember the trans fats thread quite well. IIRC you were the last man standing in blind obeisance to the Randbot mantra in spite of all the evidence. In other words taking the same ideological tunnel vision position that would call for abolishing the FAA and letting planes just crash into each other on the basis of evil 'big gummint". The same wacko fringe folderol that would remove institutional water treatment and let us all drink straight out of the river and let cars crash into each other after the evil tyrrany of red lights and stop signs were vanquished by the heroic struggle of the people.

Please. That's basic institutional maintenance, not power for the sake of power. Part and parcel of "establish domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare". Nobody in the world believes Big Bad Gummint is stepping in to make your car stop at the intersection just so it can wield its power trip. This argument is frankly absurd. And if you really want to look silly we can go back and repost the randbot arguments that citizens have a "right to trans fats"

Remember Frances Kelsey? Want to go there again?

And as I pointed out repeatedly back in that thread, institutional regulation of the public commons is a centuries old necessity. You've still never heard me advocate centralized power for its own sake, and absolutely not on civil liberties. If this is your example it's a pretty pathetic stretch.

It's for the children, right?

 

[longknife]

There is no "what if"?

Corporations are no better or worse than the people they are made up of.

They have one simple goal - to make money for the owners - the stockholders - plain, ordinary people trying to improve their lot in life.

The only "evil" one are those socialists who utter nothing but garbage about them.

 

[Pogo]

There is no "what if"?

Corporations are no better or worse than the people they are made up of.

They have one simple goal - to make money for the owners - the stockholders - plain, ordinary people trying to improve their lot in life.

The only "evil" one are those socialists who utter nothing but garbage about them.

Wow. You had the ball for three lines and a clear shot to the end zone. Then you ended up saying "there's nothing wrong with corporations as long as nobody exposes what they do!"

Yeah, hard to argue with that.

 

[bedowin62]

There is no "what if"?

Corporations are no better or worse than the people they are made up of.

They have one simple goal - to make money for the owners - the stockholders - plain, ordinary people trying to improve their lot in life.

The only "evil" one are those socialists who utter nothing but garbage about them.

Wow. You had the ball for three lines and a clear shot to the end zone. Then you ended up saying "there's nothing wrong with corporations as long as nobody exposes what they do!"

Yeah, hard to argue with that.

really?


well corporations MUST be evil; who would left-wing losers blame their failures on besides Republicans if corporations werent "evil"?

 

[Asclepias]

The title of this thread marks this as a failure. Anytime you use emotionally charged words like evil to push your point you are being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The title of this thread marks this as a failure. Anytime you use emotionally charged words like evil to push your point you are being intellectually dishonest.

I took the title from the blog post I linked to, which was written by an actual progressive who is faced with the dilemma that, occasionally, corporations do the right thing. The fact that you dismiss it as emotionally charged and intellectually dishonest just makes his point.

And mine.

 

[longknife]

There is no "what if"?

Corporations are no better or worse than the people they are made up of.

They have one simple goal - to make money for the owners - the stockholders - plain, ordinary people trying to improve their lot in life.

The only "evil" one are those socialists who utter nothing but garbage about them.

Wow. You had the ball for three lines and a clear shot to the end zone. Then you ended up saying "there's nothing wrong with corporations as long as nobody exposes what they do!"

Yeah, hard to argue with that.

I did not see that anywhere in my post! So, please explain.

 

[Asclepias]

The title of this thread marks this as a failure. Anytime you use emotionally charged words like evil to push your point you are being intellectually dishonest.

I took the title from the blog post I linked to, which was written by an actual progressive who is faced with the dilemma that, occasionally, corporations do the right thing. The fact that you dismiss it as emotionally charged and intellectually dishonest just makes his point.

And mine.

Companies are not evil or good. They are money making machines. Thats the reason they exist.