3 ms·

A 'corporate entity' is just a group of people. Those people absolutely have emotions.

dragonwriter 3y ago
Yes, but the corporate entity does not; the (possibly contradictory) emotions of the people who have some role in a corporation are not features of the corporate entity.
- randomdata 3y ago
  Yes, but the corporate entity is not a thing in and of itself. It is just a language device used in communication to identify the actual thing: People.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Yes, but the corporate entity is just another way to say group of people No, its not. Its more like a grouping of a subset of the actions of a group of people in some contexts, and a shared subset of the interests of a different (narrower, but overlapping) group of people in others. But its not generally simply a way of referencing a group of people.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      Right. Like you say, a group of people. Now, why do you think those people are void of feelings?
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Like you say, a group of people. No, that's exactly what I said it was not. A subset of the actions of a group of people, or a subset of the shared interests of a group of people, is not a group of people.
        randomdata 3y ago
        You suggested that is what it is not, but then went on to say that is what it is. You just did it again.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        No, I didn't, but if you can't understand language enough to recognize that there is no point in further discussion.
        randomdata 3y ago
        You mentioned there is a subset, but the subsets described is still a way to identify the group of people. You can try and twist language all you want, but there is no avoiding the fact that a corporation is just people. If people somehow magically disappeared, the corporate entity would disappear at the exact same time – it's the same thing.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > You mentioned there is a subset, but the subsets described is still a way to identify the group of people. A subset of the actions or interests, not a subset of the group of people (the latter would, indeed, be just a different group of people, but isn't what I said.) > If people somehow magically disappeared, the corporate entity would disappear at the exact same time – it's the same thing. No, its not the same thing. If North America disappeared, all the piles of dog feces in North America would also disappear, but the piles of dog feces are not the same thing as North America.
        randomdata 3y ago
        > A subset of the actions or interests Direction is the word you are struggling to find, but it is the direction of the group of people. You have not added anything drawing attention to this so-called subset. It changes nothing about the discussion. It's just silly wordplay to divert our attention from your grievous error at the onset.

Yes, but the corporate entity does not; the (possibly contradictory) emotions of the people who have some role in a corporation are not features of the corporate entity.

randomdata 3y ago
Yes, but the corporate entity is not a thing in and of itself. It is just a language device used in communication to identify the actual thing: People.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Yes, but the corporate entity is just another way to say group of people No, its not. Its more like a grouping of a subset of the actions of a group of people in some contexts, and a shared subset of the interests of a different (narrower, but overlapping) group of people in others. But its not generally simply a way of referencing a group of people.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Right. Like you say, a group of people. Now, why do you think those people are void of feelings?
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Like you say, a group of people. No, that's exactly what I said it was not. A subset of the actions of a group of people, or a subset of the shared interests of a group of people, is not a group of people.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        You suggested that is what it is not, but then went on to say that is what it is. You just did it again.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        No, I didn't, but if you can't understand language enough to recognize that there is no point in further discussion.
        randomdata 3y ago
        You mentioned there is a subset, but the subsets described is still a way to identify the group of people. You can try and twist language all you want, but there is no avoiding the fact that a corporation is just people. If people somehow magically disappeared, the corporate entity would disappear at the exact same time – it's the same thing.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > You mentioned there is a subset, but the subsets described is still a way to identify the group of people. A subset of the actions or interests, not a subset of the group of people (the latter would, indeed, be just a different group of people, but isn't what I said.) > If people somehow magically disappeared, the corporate entity would disappear at the exact same time – it's the same thing. No, its not the same thing. If North America disappeared, all the piles of dog feces in North America would also disappear, but the piles of dog feces are not the same thing as North America.
        randomdata 3y ago
        > A subset of the actions or interests Direction is the word you are struggling to find, but it is the direction of the group of people. You have not added anything drawing attention to this so-called subset. It changes nothing about the discussion. It's just silly wordplay to divert our attention from your grievous error at the onset.