3 ms·

Yes, and the reasoning holds; an individual decides to do that. There’s a name on that check, a specific person who authorizes the transfer of funds. How coul

Yes, and the reasoning holds; an individual decides to do that. There’s a name on that check, a specific person who authorizes the transfer of funds. How could you ethically stop a person from authorizing that check?

g-b-r 3y ago
Disregarding the fact that I see many ways to ethically stop corruption, when an individual *acts* in the name of a corporation, the action is a result of the corporation's functioning, not of the individual's will (were it not so, the individual would have misappropriated the funds, to my understanding).
- WendyTheWillow 3y ago
  That’s what we’re discussing; I’m saying that an individual is protected in their speech while operating on behalf of a corporation, and that it’s not corruption. You declaring it so doesn’t make it so. And yes, the individual risks acting in ways their company doesn’t like, but they can do things to lower that risk, such as asking other individuals within that corporation what their desired action is. But it’s still individuals acting, so they’re afforded all of the protections the Constitution provides.
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    No, it's simply not so
    - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
      A better comment would attempt to explain why is my point. Thus far, you've been insistent on refusing to explain yourself or being open to alternative views.
      - g-b-r 3y ago
        I think I did explain more than enough If you think that someone acting in the name of a company can act in his name there doesn't seem much to discuss.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        "Because I believe differently than you, there isn't much to discuss." is a terrible way to convince others of your belief. You're presupposing your conclusion and seem completely closed to the idea that you may be wrong.
        g-b-r 3y ago
        No, I explained my conclusion multiple times but you don't seem to have noticed it. I'm not a lawyer, but the fact that a representative of a company can't manage the company's funds however he wants is: * what I've always known * obvious on the face of it * apparently confirmed by quick searches of terms like misappropriation and embezzlement You seem to be just trying to win a debate competition and I have zero interest in that; especially since there isn't someone around to judge it.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        That’s true, but it’s not what I said. It seems like you may need to reread what I wrote in order to respond to it, but then again it’s probably easier for you to pretend to misunderstand me than it is to actually address what I’ve written…
        g-b-r 3y ago
        It's definitely you who has to read again the thread. I did and I've gotten the nth confirmation that you're not really reading what I write, and maybe not really here for a discussion
        3y ago

g-b-r 3y ago

Disregarding the fact that I see many ways to ethically stop corruption, when an individual *acts* in the name of a corporation, the action is a result of the corporation's functioning, not of the individual's will (were it not so, the individual would have misappropriated the funds, to my understanding).

WendyTheWillow 3y ago
That’s what we’re discussing; I’m saying that an individual is protected in their speech while operating on behalf of a corporation, and that it’s not corruption. You declaring it so doesn’t make it so. And yes, the individual risks acting in ways their company doesn’t like, but they can do things to lower that risk, such as asking other individuals within that corporation what their desired action is. But it’s still individuals acting, so they’re afforded all of the protections the Constitution provides.
- g-b-r 3y ago
  No, it's simply not so
  - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
    A better comment would attempt to explain why is my point. Thus far, you've been insistent on refusing to explain yourself or being open to alternative views.
    - g-b-r 3y ago
      I think I did explain more than enough If you think that someone acting in the name of a company can act in his name there doesn't seem much to discuss.
      - WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        "Because I believe differently than you, there isn't much to discuss." is a terrible way to convince others of your belief. You're presupposing your conclusion and seem completely closed to the idea that you may be wrong.
        g-b-r 3y ago
        No, I explained my conclusion multiple times but you don't seem to have noticed it. I'm not a lawyer, but the fact that a representative of a company can't manage the company's funds however he wants is: * what I've always known * obvious on the face of it * apparently confirmed by quick searches of terms like misappropriation and embezzlement You seem to be just trying to win a debate competition and I have zero interest in that; especially since there isn't someone around to judge it.
        WendyTheWillow 3y ago
        That’s true, but it’s not what I said. It seems like you may need to reread what I wrote in order to respond to it, but then again it’s probably easier for you to pretend to misunderstand me than it is to actually address what I’ve written…
        g-b-r 3y ago
        It's definitely you who has to read again the thread. I did and I've gotten the nth confirmation that you're not really reading what I write, and maybe not really here for a discussion
        3y ago