PayPal and Visa are dicks.
-
David I work for an organisation that supplies drugs to (pick a country), traffics in humans and kills baby seals, we need a person with your skills would you work for us! At this point you can excercise your right to refuse to work with said organisation b/c you do not like their ethics, if you are the only person with your skills you can still refuse to work with them. Why should there be a law that forces you to work for this organisation? You see where this is going! I agree with you that PayPal are arseholes but not for the same reason, they have their own grey ethical areas!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
jschell wrote:
I don't understand that.
Yep. You are talking about a consumer using a card. I am talking about a business asking a company to process payments for it. When you use a credit card, you are asking a company to pay someone else their money and promising to pay them back. When a business asks Paypal (or Visa) to act as its agent and collect money from its customers, it is hiring them to do a job. They have the right to refuse to work for you, just as you have the right to refuse to work for me.
jschell wrote:
But if all financial institutions refuse to deal with you then there are no choices left.
Then don't piss off Paypal and Visa. If they don't like you, they won't work for you.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
modified on Friday, July 22, 2011 5:18 PM
Oakman wrote:
Then don't piss off Paypal and Visa. If they don't like you, they won't work for you.
They are pissed off just because they don't like your face. What are you going to do about that? The wikileaks case I might understand, but the sites they're targeting now, no.
-
David1987 wrote:
They don't have any good reason
Ya think, while it is just possible that someone in the govt leaned on them I think Wikileaks pissed off someone fairly high up the food chain and they pulled the plug on them. Imagine if Oakman was in the senior management, I could see him retaliating in such a way when someone attacks his ideals!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
David1987 wrote:
They don't have any good reason
Ya think, while it is just possible that someone in the govt leaned on them I think Wikileaks pissed off someone fairly high up the food chain and they pulled the plug on them. Imagine if Oakman was in the senior management, I could see him retaliating in such a way when someone attacks his ideals!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
David1987 wrote:
And that isn't a good reason
We obviously differ in that opinion, I think if someone pisses me off enough then I would have no compunction retailiating in such a way!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
David1987 wrote:
And that isn't a good reason
We obviously differ in that opinion, I think if someone pisses me off enough then I would have no compunction retailiating in such a way!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
It's very unprofessional IMO. Of course in private that wouldn't be a problem. But come on, they could decide to refuse to process payments to/from everyone who voted a certain way, for example. And PayPal could delete your account and eat all the credit because you were dating the daughter of one of the top managers but you cheated on her. Personal vendetta's have no place there.
-
Oakman wrote:
Because they are exercising their rights?
In this case, yes. They shouldn't have that right.
David1987 wrote:
They shouldn't have that right.
Should you? Should the government force you to work for me if you don't like me or what I do? How do you feel about out and out slavery?
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
David1987 wrote:
They shouldn't have that right.
Should you? Should the government force you to work for me if you don't like me or what I do? How do you feel about out and out slavery?
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
David1987 wrote:
I should be forced to have a good reason.
Really? And who gets to decide what a good reason for you to refuse to work for me is, if not you? Who gets to decide who PayPal works for if not PayPal? Would you perhaps have the government decide it? Really? Men who have been anointed with public office after running campaigns that are better suited to snake oil marketing, deciding what jobs you can take (and presumably then, what jobs you cannot)? Do you want these extremely fallible and usually not very bright people deciding what time you get up and what time you go to bed, as well?
David1987 wrote:
It's obviously not slavery.
The single difference between a slave and a freeman is the right to say, "I quit," and that is the right you wish to take away.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
David1987 wrote:
They don't have any good reason
Ya think, while it is just possible that someone in the govt leaned on them I think Wikileaks pissed off someone fairly high up the food chain and they pulled the plug on them. Imagine if Oakman was in the senior management, I could see him retaliating in such a way when someone attacks his ideals!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
Imagine if Oakman was in the senior management, I could see him retaliating in such a way when someone attacks his ideals!
So you think I have the right to say, "I don't want to work for you!"? I'll bet David really agrees. He just hasn't thought it through and is responding emotionally because he think Wikileaks are white hats so they should get special favors.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
David1987 wrote:
I should be forced to have a good reason.
Really? And who gets to decide what a good reason for you to refuse to work for me is, if not you? Who gets to decide who PayPal works for if not PayPal? Would you perhaps have the government decide it? Really? Men who have been anointed with public office after running campaigns that are better suited to snake oil marketing, deciding what jobs you can take (and presumably then, what jobs you cannot)? Do you want these extremely fallible and usually not very bright people deciding what time you get up and what time you go to bed, as well?
David1987 wrote:
It's obviously not slavery.
The single difference between a slave and a freeman is the right to say, "I quit," and that is the right you wish to take away.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
At the very least, you should have the opportunity to take me to court and force me to do my job. Unless of course my defense is convincing. It's not unreasonable at all.
Oakman wrote:
The single difference between a slave and a freeman is the right to say, "I quit," and that is the right you wish to take away.
No. You could just quit. But you couldn't refuse service just because my last name is kind of funny. It's absolutely ridiculous that you can now.
-
David1987 wrote:
I should be forced to have a good reason.
Really? And who gets to decide what a good reason for you to refuse to work for me is, if not you? Who gets to decide who PayPal works for if not PayPal? Would you perhaps have the government decide it? Really? Men who have been anointed with public office after running campaigns that are better suited to snake oil marketing, deciding what jobs you can take (and presumably then, what jobs you cannot)? Do you want these extremely fallible and usually not very bright people deciding what time you get up and what time you go to bed, as well?
David1987 wrote:
It's obviously not slavery.
The single difference between a slave and a freeman is the right to say, "I quit," and that is the right you wish to take away.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
At the very least, you should have the opportunity to take me to court and force me to do my job. Unless of course my defense is convincing. It's not unreasonable at all.
Oakman wrote:
The single difference between a slave and a freeman is the right to say, "I quit," and that is the right you wish to take away.
No. You could just quit. But you couldn't refuse service just because my last name is kind of funny. It's absolutely ridiculous that you can now.
David1987 wrote:
At the very least, you should have the opportunity to take me to court and force me to do my job
Awhile back that was the law of the land here in the U.S. In a famous decision called the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court said that an escaped slave could be forced to return with his erstwhile owner, even if the slave was living in a state that had outlawed slavery. This concept, and that decision, occasioned a terrible war here in the U.S. but at that point it was established that any person had the right to say "I quit," unless he-she has signed a no-quit contract, and that usually requires penalties to be paid, not a return to bondage.
David1987 wrote:
You could just quit.
David1987 wrote:
But you couldn't refuse service just because my last name is kind of funny
These two statements are contradictory. If I can "just quit," as a freeman should be able to do then I have every right to refuse to hire on in the first place, because I don't like your name, or the color of your hair or any other reason. If you can force me to do so then I am a slave. You realize, I hope that you are arguing against the right to strike, a position taken in this country only by conservatives, and then, only regarding government workers. Would you, I wonder, feel that Paypal had the right to force your business to keep conducting transactions with them if you chose not to, or is this a case of turnabout not being fair play?
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
David1987 wrote:
I should be forced to have a good reason.
Really? And who gets to decide what a good reason for you to refuse to work for me is, if not you? Who gets to decide who PayPal works for if not PayPal? Would you perhaps have the government decide it? Really? Men who have been anointed with public office after running campaigns that are better suited to snake oil marketing, deciding what jobs you can take (and presumably then, what jobs you cannot)? Do you want these extremely fallible and usually not very bright people deciding what time you get up and what time you go to bed, as well?
David1987 wrote:
It's obviously not slavery.
The single difference between a slave and a freeman is the right to say, "I quit," and that is the right you wish to take away.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Oakman wrote:
and presumably then, what jobs you cannot
They already can and frequently do.
David1987 wrote:
They already can and frequently do.
Perhaps in England, but over here not so much. I do find it curious, however, that you have gone from arguing what "should be," to "what is." Consistency is an over-rated virtue, perhaps, but one that often helps to keep from making one look unfocused and scatter-brained.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with employees. It's about companies refusing service for bullshit reasons, and there being nothing you can do about it.
David1987 wrote:
It's about companies refusing service for bullsh*t reasons,
Wrong. A corporation in this country (and in England, I believe) is a legal person. And hiring them to do a job for you is the same as hiring individuals to do the same job for you. In both cases a contract - if there is one - will determine the terms of service (if there isn't, then in any dispute, you are up shit creek without a paddle). Certain utilities that have been granted monopolies are, indeed constrained to provide service for anyone willing and able to pay for it, but that is a special case where the overarching contract has been signed between a governmental body and the company. What you don't seem to want to admit is that one person's bullshit reasons are another person's valid cause. The minute you demand that your judgement be substituted for that of another person when it comes to their choices, you are granting yourself special rights and privileges - and that is a slippery slope indeed.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
David1987 wrote:
They already can and frequently do.
Perhaps in England, but over here not so much. I do find it curious, however, that you have gone from arguing what "should be," to "what is." Consistency is an over-rated virtue, perhaps, but one that often helps to keep from making one look unfocused and scatter-brained.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
David1987 wrote:
It's about companies refusing service for bullsh*t reasons,
Wrong. A corporation in this country (and in England, I believe) is a legal person. And hiring them to do a job for you is the same as hiring individuals to do the same job for you. In both cases a contract - if there is one - will determine the terms of service (if there isn't, then in any dispute, you are up shit creek without a paddle). Certain utilities that have been granted monopolies are, indeed constrained to provide service for anyone willing and able to pay for it, but that is a special case where the overarching contract has been signed between a governmental body and the company. What you don't seem to want to admit is that one person's bullshit reasons are another person's valid cause. The minute you demand that your judgement be substituted for that of another person when it comes to their choices, you are granting yourself special rights and privileges - and that is a slippery slope indeed.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
Wrong
Right! I dont give a flying fuck about what the law says, I'm talking about how it should be. There is a huge difference between a person quitting his job and a company refusing the provide a service. They are miles apart.
Oakman wrote:
What you don't seem to want to admit is that one person's bullsh*t reasons are another person's valid cause.
And that's why a court should come into this. The only entity that can ever decide whose reasons are best is the court. Now, if there is a disagreement on what is a valid reason, they say "you are always wrong. sucks to be you but you can't even complain." That is NOT a good situation. It gives companies a power higher even than the state, which you can always sue.
-
David1987 wrote:
At the very least, you should have the opportunity to take me to court and force me to do my job
Awhile back that was the law of the land here in the U.S. In a famous decision called the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court said that an escaped slave could be forced to return with his erstwhile owner, even if the slave was living in a state that had outlawed slavery. This concept, and that decision, occasioned a terrible war here in the U.S. but at that point it was established that any person had the right to say "I quit," unless he-she has signed a no-quit contract, and that usually requires penalties to be paid, not a return to bondage.
David1987 wrote:
You could just quit.
David1987 wrote:
But you couldn't refuse service just because my last name is kind of funny
These two statements are contradictory. If I can "just quit," as a freeman should be able to do then I have every right to refuse to hire on in the first place, because I don't like your name, or the color of your hair or any other reason. If you can force me to do so then I am a slave. You realize, I hope that you are arguing against the right to strike, a position taken in this country only by conservatives, and then, only regarding government workers. Would you, I wonder, feel that Paypal had the right to force your business to keep conducting transactions with them if you chose not to, or is this a case of turnabout not being fair play?
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Cute detail, people here don't have the right the strike and can be forced to work. Of course that forcing only goes so far... everyone could call in sick. But still, a planned strike can be prohibited with a court order, and I don't think that's a bad idea - imagine all medical staff going on strike. Oh wait, they did - only they were nice enough to keep doing essential things. But what if they hadn't been so nice? Their "freedom" is then an other persons death.
-
Oakman wrote:
and presumably then, what jobs you cannot
They already can and frequently do.
David1987 wrote:
They already can and frequently do.
Really? Other than attempting to ensure that airline pilots, medics, et al, have been trained for their profession, what control does our government exercise? What job have you been told you cannot do?
The 1-legged bar stool of understanding is supported by booze. Equipped with that, I know everything, and the rest of you are just a bunch of ignorant peasants with dung on your boots. A R G H