4 ms·

Uh, it's not a sit in for the right to use the same schools as the taxi companies, it's a calculated money grab. It's a bet that they can make enough progress

Uh, it's not a sit in for the right to use the same schools as the taxi companies, it's a calculated money grab. It's a bet that they can make enough progress before they go under. Sure, they saw the writing on the wall first, and I don't think anyone thinks this isn't where we will be in a few years, especially with self driving cars, but they're not MLK and co. They're a business that's intentionally breaking rules to make money. Edit: The rules they are breaking may be silly, but they aren't fighting a moral cause. I guess this is the natural progression of corporations are people too.

smokeyj 10y ago
> but they aren't fighting a moral cause What exactly do you think I want from a car ride? I encourage everyone to break stupid rules. Let's leave the moralizing to religion.
- CaptainZapp 10y ago
  I encourage everyone to break stupid rules Like, your driver not being intoxicated? Like, the person responsible for your life adhered to her mandatory rest period? Like the person driving you around is properly insured for the case that your face crashes through the windshield, because he was focused on his GPS and didn't note the lorry, which had right of way? Like showing a modicum of sense of place and orientation without being dependent on a GPS? Yeah! let's fuck all those rules! They are purely for moralists!
  - nb777 10y ago
    There are way more important rules when it comes to passenger safety like e.g. driving according to the speed limit. I had a lot of taxi rides in my life and they definetly didn't feel safer than uber/lyft rides since, at least in my country, taxi drivers drive like lunatics.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    It's completely clear that by encouraging civil disobedience against stupid rules he actually meant breaking all the rules. Similarly when MLK supported Rosa Parks after she broke the law against sitting in the wrong place, he definitely meant for everyone to break the laws against rape and murder.
  - smokeyj 10y ago
    So if I give someone a ride for free, that's okay. But if I were to offer this ride in exchange for something - then that's bad? And what about the morality of telling two consenting adults how they can peacefully organize? Do you always like telling people how to live their lives with the threat of violence? Sounds like the type of religion that would lead to mass starvation. Oh wait..
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Imagine a person was engaging in civil disobedience and speaking to the public in order to eliminate segregation laws and gain the right to work higher paying jobs, to sell products to white customers, and similar financial reasons. I could equally well characterize that as a "calculated money grab". Various businesses also didn't want to deal with the (costly) hassle of segregation, and opposed segregation for that reason. Would that mean they "aren't fighting a moral cause"? Were the only people who were fighting for a moral cause the white northerners who had nothing to gain?
- dllthomas 10y ago
  > Were the only people who were fighting for a moral cause the white northerners who had nothing to gain? Presumably the logic you are critiquing would also include any white southerners who stood to lose but still supported desegregation.

smokeyj 10y ago

> but they aren't fighting a moral cause What exactly do you think I want from a car ride? I encourage everyone to break stupid rules. Let's leave the moralizing to religion.

CaptainZapp 10y ago
I encourage everyone to break stupid rules Like, your driver not being intoxicated? Like, the person responsible for your life adhered to her mandatory rest period? Like the person driving you around is properly insured for the case that your face crashes through the windshield, because he was focused on his GPS and didn't note the lorry, which had right of way? Like showing a modicum of sense of place and orientation without being dependent on a GPS? Yeah! let's fuck all those rules! They are purely for moralists!
- nb777 10y ago
  There are way more important rules when it comes to passenger safety like e.g. driving according to the speed limit. I had a lot of taxi rides in my life and they definetly didn't feel safer than uber/lyft rides since, at least in my country, taxi drivers drive like lunatics.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  It's completely clear that by encouraging civil disobedience against stupid rules he actually meant breaking all the rules. Similarly when MLK supported Rosa Parks after she broke the law against sitting in the wrong place, he definitely meant for everyone to break the laws against rape and murder.
- smokeyj 10y ago
  So if I give someone a ride for free, that's okay. But if I were to offer this ride in exchange for something - then that's bad? And what about the morality of telling two consenting adults how they can peacefully organize? Do you always like telling people how to live their lives with the threat of violence? Sounds like the type of religion that would lead to mass starvation. Oh wait..

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Imagine a person was engaging in civil disobedience and speaking to the public in order to eliminate segregation laws and gain the right to work higher paying jobs, to sell products to white customers, and similar financial reasons. I could equally well characterize that as a "calculated money grab". Various businesses also didn't want to deal with the (costly) hassle of segregation, and opposed segregation for that reason. Would that mean they "aren't fighting a moral cause"? Were the only people who were fighting for a moral cause the white northerners who had nothing to gain?

dllthomas 10y ago
> Were the only people who were fighting for a moral cause the white northerners who had nothing to gain? Presumably the logic you are critiquing would also include any white southerners who stood to lose but still supported desegregation.