PayPal and Visa are dicks.
-
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
-
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.
I just thought of a small change to the law that might fix it - instead of requiring breach of contract to sue for purely monetary damage, allow people to sue over purely monetary damage in all cases. That pretty much closes the loophole. If a company refuses to service you and thereby does non-monetary damages you could already sue them anyway. Or, alternatively, mandate that contracts never include a clause that says they can "terminate for any or no reason", because that's unreasonable anyway.
-
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:
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
-
In the US too. Domain name seizures are just that. Ordering a company (ICANN) to stop proving a service (DNS)
David1987 wrote:
Domain name seizures are just that
Which part of utilities granted monopolies having special rules didn't you understand?
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:
Domain name seizures are just that
Which part of utilities granted monopolies having special rules didn't you understand?
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.
David1987 wrote:
people here don't have the right the strike and can be forced to work.
I suppose I am not surprised, though I am saddened to hear it. However, British law does not apply to the United States - check with Lord Cornwallis to find out why - it had something to do with personal freedom, I believe.
David1987 wrote:
But what if they hadn't been so nice?
What if the moon is made of green cheese? Sorry, I have real trouble with hypotheticals, the real world is where I am more comfortable.
David1987 wrote:
Their "freedom" is then an other persons death.
Then the hospital will be well advised to offer only no-strike contracts, wouldn't it? The right to strike is one that can be negotiated away in return for the right recompense.
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.
-
All parts, because I never read that. Fine, then PayPal is a utility. It's not that much of a stretch anyway.
David1987 wrote:
Fine, then PayPal is a utility. It's not that much of a stretch anyway.
Which part of utilities granted a monopoly didn't you understand?
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.
-
It's not about "not allowing a person to do a certain job", but not allowing them to do it for someone specific. Domain name seizures are just that. Ordering a company (ICANN) to stop proving a service (DNS) to specific companies and websites.
David1987 wrote:
Ordering a company (ICANN) to stop proving a service (DNS) to specific companies and websites.
Which part of a utility -- never mind. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
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:
people here don't have the right the strike and can be forced to work.
I suppose I am not surprised, though I am saddened to hear it. However, British law does not apply to the United States - check with Lord Cornwallis to find out why - it had something to do with personal freedom, I believe.
David1987 wrote:
But what if they hadn't been so nice?
What if the moon is made of green cheese? Sorry, I have real trouble with hypotheticals, the real world is where I am more comfortable.
David1987 wrote:
Their "freedom" is then an other persons death.
Then the hospital will be well advised to offer only no-strike contracts, wouldn't it? The right to strike is one that can be negotiated away in return for the right recompense.
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.
Their being not nice is infinitely more likely than the moon being made of any colour of cheese.
Oakman wrote:
Then the hospital will be well advised to offer only no-strike contracts, wouldn't it?
It would be, but "freedom" would also allow them not to do that.
Oakman wrote:
British law does not apply to the United States
Nor does it apply here.. although I recall a strike being prohibited in Britain as well.
-
David1987 wrote:
Ordering a company (ICANN) to stop proving a service (DNS) to specific companies and websites.
Which part of a utility -- never mind. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
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:
Fine, then PayPal is a utility. It's not that much of a stretch anyway.
Which part of utilities granted a monopoly didn't you understand?
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:
I dont give a flying f*** about what the law says, I'm talking about how it should be.
So the United States needs to change the way we do business to suit the world view of one pissed-off Englishman? Are you perhaps channeling George III?
David1987 wrote:
There is a huge difference between a person quitting his job and a company refusing the provide a service. They are miles apart.
Only in your mind. I think you should talk to the many people here on CP who are incorporated and serve as the sole employee of the corporation that they own. They would, I suspect, be surprised to discover that they should be required to accept any job offered to them. If you wish to argue that 1-person corporations are different, then how about 2-person? 3? 4? 5? When does slavery kick in?
David1987 wrote:
The only entity that can ever decide whose reasons are best is the court
And they claim American are litigious. Whgen Wikileaks signed on with Paypal, they agreed to allow "PayPal to permanently restrict their account due to a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which states that the payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity." Wikileaks made lots of noise about suing Paypal, but as far as I know, has done nothing - given the unambiguous language of the above which is a slight abridgment of Paypal's contract, I'd say that Wikileaks would win shortly after pigs flew and snowballs fights were being held in hell. Now you may wish that betraying one's country was not illegal, but nonetheless, that is what Bradley Manning - with the encouragement, facilitation, and instruction of Wikileaks, did, and that is not only considered illegal, but highly immoral in the U.S. of A.
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.
-
I just thought of a small change to the law that might fix it - instead of requiring breach of contract to sue for purely monetary damage, allow people to sue over purely monetary damage in all cases. That pretty much closes the loophole. If a company refuses to service you and thereby does non-monetary damages you could already sue them anyway. Or, alternatively, mandate that contracts never include a clause that says they can "terminate for any or no reason", because that's unreasonable anyway.
David1987 wrote:
That pretty much closes the loophole. If a company refuses to service you and thereby does non-monetary damages you could already sue them anyway.
So Paypal cannot create any terms of service? You can do anything and everything you wish while using them as your agent and they have nothing to say about it? What color is the sky on your planet?
David1987 wrote:
Or, alternatively, mandate that contracts never include a clause that says they can "terminate for any or no reason", because that's unreasonable anyway.
That's slavery. Would you sign a contract that said you couldn't quit?
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 dont give a flying f*** about what the law says, I'm talking about how it should be.
So the United States needs to change the way we do business to suit the world view of one pissed-off Englishman? Are you perhaps channeling George III?
David1987 wrote:
There is a huge difference between a person quitting his job and a company refusing the provide a service. They are miles apart.
Only in your mind. I think you should talk to the many people here on CP who are incorporated and serve as the sole employee of the corporation that they own. They would, I suspect, be surprised to discover that they should be required to accept any job offered to them. If you wish to argue that 1-person corporations are different, then how about 2-person? 3? 4? 5? When does slavery kick in?
David1987 wrote:
The only entity that can ever decide whose reasons are best is the court
And they claim American are litigious. Whgen Wikileaks signed on with Paypal, they agreed to allow "PayPal to permanently restrict their account due to a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which states that the payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity." Wikileaks made lots of noise about suing Paypal, but as far as I know, has done nothing - given the unambiguous language of the above which is a slight abridgment of Paypal's contract, I'd say that Wikileaks would win shortly after pigs flew and snowballs fights were being held in hell. Now you may wish that betraying one's country was not illegal, but nonetheless, that is what Bradley Manning - with the encouragement, facilitation, and instruction of Wikileaks, did, and that is not only considered illegal, but highly immoral in the U.S. of A.
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.
I'm still not English, but whatever.
Oakman wrote:
They would, I suspect, be surprised to discover that they should be required to accept any job offered to them.
Not necessarily. They could have a good reason for refusing. Ok so wikileaks violated the contract. Fine. I'm not a big fan of wikileaks, contrary to what you may think. They're a bit of a grayhat IMO, a nice mixture of good and bad.. Anyway my main problem is not that they cut off wikileaks, but that there is no room to complain under ANY circumstances. They're now also refusing service to several websites that didn't do anything illegal.
-
It's not about "not allowing a person to do a certain job", but not allowing them to do it for someone specific. Domain name seizures are just that. Ordering a company (ICANN) to stop proving a service (DNS) to specific companies and websites.
Oakman wrote:
Men ... anointed with public office ... deciding what jobs you can take (and presumably then, what jobs you cannot)?
In response to "and presumably then, what jobs you cannot":
David1987 wrote:
They already can and frequently do.
Hence my response. However, the question remains.:
David1987 wrote:
not allowing them to do it for someone specific
For whom, specifically, has a public official told you cannot work? As for Domain Name seizure, there are ways: e.g., a Chinese registrar and a Cocos Islands Top-Level Domain :) ).
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
-
David1987 wrote:
That pretty much closes the loophole. If a company refuses to service you and thereby does non-monetary damages you could already sue them anyway.
So Paypal cannot create any terms of service? You can do anything and everything you wish while using them as your agent and they have nothing to say about it? What color is the sky on your planet?
David1987 wrote:
Or, alternatively, mandate that contracts never include a clause that says they can "terminate for any or no reason", because that's unreasonable anyway.
That's slavery. Would you sign a contract that said you couldn't quit?
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:
That's slavery. Would you sign a contract that said you couldn't quit?
I never said that. You changed that nicely. But maybe it wasn't such a good idea. Although, let's go with that, just for the heck of it. I could argue that slavery isn't bad when it's a person-who-is-a-company. Every single person in that company could quit anyway if they don't like it.
Oakman wrote:
So Paypal cannot create any terms of service? You can do anything and everything you wish while using them as your agent and they have nothing to say about it?
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. Being able to sue does not guarantee you win.