4 ms·

But if we define it as something that the society should encourage because it's beneficial to the society then for-profits are arguably on a higher grou

But if we define it as something that the society should encourage because it's beneficial to the society then for-profits are arguably on a higher ground ... KKK is a non-profit. And Comcast is a company. Just because people give money to an organization and extract value from it doesn't mean society should encourage that company's behavior. Your argument makes no sense. You're saying: 1. Moral ground is "something society encourages because it's beneficial to society" 2. People give for-profit companies their money 3. Therefore, companies have a higher moral ground since companies are "demonstrably beneficial to people" How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion? You then throw an example of a bad non-profit (KKK) as I can equally give you an example of a bad company (Comcast) that takes people's money, provides a necessary service to their customers, but is by all accounts one of the worst, most parasitic organizations on the planet.

austerity 12y ago
Have you just compared Comcast to KKK? The reason you don't understand my argument after reinterpreting it is because you have for some reason excluded a few important words from it: "inherently", "should" (as in "should encourage") and "willingly". I am inclined to think your confusion is intentional and therefore explaining myself will be a waste of time.
- yourad_io 12y ago
  > Have you just compared Comcast to KKK? No?
- mikegioia 12y ago
  Please, that's a cop out. I didn't re-interpret anything and "should" doesn't add anything to that sentence. "if we define it as something that the society should encourage because it's beneficial to the society then for-profits are arguably on a higher ground since they are demonstrably beneficial to people who are willingly giving them money" That's a direct quote from your comment. I merely asked how you got from A to B. How are for-profits "demonstrably beneficial" given your definition of moral ground? You're stating a definition and just stating a conclusion you draw with no actual substance into how you're making that conclusion. I challenge your statement that for-profits are "demonstrably beneficial" merely because people give them money!

austerity 12y ago

Have you just compared Comcast to KKK? The reason you don't understand my argument after reinterpreting it is because you have for some reason excluded a few important words from it: "inherently", "should" (as in "should encourage") and "willingly". I am inclined to think your confusion is intentional and therefore explaining myself will be a waste of time.

yourad_io 12y ago
> Have you just compared Comcast to KKK? No?
mikegioia 12y ago
Please, that's a cop out. I didn't re-interpret anything and "should" doesn't add anything to that sentence. "if we define it as something that the society should encourage because it's beneficial to the society then for-profits are arguably on a higher ground since they are demonstrably beneficial to people who are willingly giving them money" That's a direct quote from your comment. I merely asked how you got from A to B. How are for-profits "demonstrably beneficial" given your definition of moral ground? You're stating a definition and just stating a conclusion you draw with no actual substance into how you're making that conclusion. I challenge your statement that for-profits are "demonstrably beneficial" merely because people give them money!