Microsoft and Hollywood?
-
What about non profit corporations, are they bad, too? Never forget: "Stay kul and happy" (I.A.)
David's thoughts / dnhsoftware.org / MyHTMLTidyWhat is the purpose of a corporation?
-
The thing is... how far removed from the immoral things do you have to be before you can stop considering yourself tainted by them?
If you are not doing or causing some immoral action, then you cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Though, I'd say a wise person would not work with people who are doing immoral activity.
What about the laborers actually producing shoddy work, simply because it's easier and no-one seems to care?
It's on his own head, that person doing an immoral activity; because no one seemingly cares has nothing to do with whether or not a job should be done right.
but what about the shareholders pressuring that guy to increase profits, with no thought to the consequences?
You can't say that shareholder pressure permits immoral activity. Shareholders have the knowledge that what they are doing is an elaborate gambling scheme. If they lose money, it's on their own heads, they knew there was risk involved. To say, "I was only doing immoral activity XYZ because the shareholds pressured my company to make money", is nothing more than a poor excuse for immoral behavior. The shareholders themselves are not immoral; they invested money into a corporation, helping it out, with the full knowledge that they risk losing all their money or doubling it. To say their dollar pressure causes immoral activity is wrong; as mentioned previously, pressure of having to make a profit does not permit immoral activity, thus, people committing the immoral activity are in the wrong.
Corporations are all too often just a mental game. A way of blaming someone else for your own weakness, your own greed. They are the manifestation of a culture of lust and cowardice.
I work for a corporation not for my own greed, but to provide for my family. Most will concur there is nothing immoral about that. Sure, we'd all like to have more money, but in the end, corporations are a way to make a living, both for employee and employer. Corporations also spawn competition, which more often than not, results in better products, possibly improving or advancing humanity as a whole.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Cops & Robbers Judah Himango
-- modified at 15:44 Tuesday 30th August, 2005
Just like people can be psychopathic, so can corporations. Why? Because corporations are made up of and led by people. If the people at the top are psychopathic the so will be the corporation. Witness the Sam Waksall's and Enron's of the world. Read Is your Boss (or corporation) a psychopath?[^]
-
look i know u probably mean well and all but i really dont have time to explain why i think corporations that care for nothing other than their bottom lines are not a good thing... if u dont get it already then my explanations wont make anything any clearer and btw stop trying to make me a spokes person for anything anti-corporate ... all i did was make a comment actually supporting MS for once!!
If you can't or won't explain yourself, that's fine, I was only curious to understand the thinking behind the "all corporations are bad" idea, which is often rampant in the web's various tech peanut galleries, such as Slashdot.
btw stop trying to make me a spokes person for anything anti-corporate
I didn't, you did. You said in your first post, and I quote, "im as anti-corporation as anyone", implying that you are anti-corporate as others seemingly are.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Cops & Robbers Judah Himango
-
yes you do: yourself. And ultimately whoever pays you for your work is, in reality your "boss." In anycase, its still worth a read if only to help you recognize the psychopathic people in organizations (or corporations) you may end up taking work from. Whatever. May good opportunities come your way and may you have the wisdom and courage to see and use them.
-
What is the purpose of a corporation?
Shog9 wrote: What is the purpose of a corporation? Depends on who formed it for what purpose. Some corporations are for-profit, some are *not* for-profit. But the commonality among them all is to protect the founder's and officer's assets.
-
I think he'd accept such a lesson from you. --- LOL :laugh::laugh:;P;P;P
-
Judah, I think Lauren is talking about the PsychoPathic Corporation, as described in this link: Is your boss (or corporation) a Psychopath?[^]
Ok, if she is then it is my mistake. She had said in her first post that she is anti-corporate without any qualifications to that effect, so I responded accordingly.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Cops & Robbers Judah Himango
-
If you can't or won't explain yourself, that's fine, I was only curious to understand the thinking behind the "all corporations are bad" idea, which is often rampant in the web's various tech peanut galleries, such as Slashdot.
btw stop trying to make me a spokes person for anything anti-corporate
I didn't, you did. You said in your first post, and I quote, "im as anti-corporation as anyone", implying that you are anti-corporate as others seemingly are.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Cops & Robbers Judah Himango
-
Ok, if she is then it is my mistake. She had said in her first post that she is anti-corporate without any qualifications to that effect, so I responded accordingly.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Cops & Robbers Judah Himango
I am just assuming that 1) I can speak for her and 2) that she's more reasonable than she sounded in her post. And you know assuming makes u and me: think of the three letter word for donkey beginning in 'a' and ending in 'ss'.
-
What is the purpose of a corporation?
Franky, I don't know a thing about it. But it is written on the internet! :-D What I understand from google it makes things (e.g. making money) easier for stockholders. As for non profit corp., this link again[^] Never forget: "Stay kul and happy" (I.A.)
David's thoughts / dnhsoftware.org / MyHTMLTidy -
Didn't mean any harm, was just curious to understand.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Cops & Robbers Judah Himango
-
I think he'd accept such a lesson from you. --- LOL :laugh::laugh:;P;P;P
Yeah, I am ignorant (old story), bad mannered sexist, and I am hitting on Lauren (*). Great :sigh: *nothing personal, you started with that Never forget: "Stay kul and happy" (I.A.)
David's thoughts / dnhsoftware.org / MyHTMLTidy -
Microsoft And Hollywood[^] Just once I would like to see someone on the side of the consumer. I mean really you are going to shut off the video stream to my monitor if my hardware can not support the copy protection? I have been in several fights with friends over Microsoft because I believe in the technology and innovation they have brought to the PC but I gotta tell you no one is going to control me or my computer. Maybe the money I spend don’t mean much to a company like Microsoft and maybe they don’t care about me but if there is enough “me’s” in the world maybe they will start to care. I am done defending XP is a good OS and I will stay with it if that means no DVD’s on my computer then so be it. Anyone else? Will
-
Shog9 wrote: What is the purpose of a corporation? Depends on who formed it for what purpose. Some corporations are for-profit, some are *not* for-profit. But the commonality among them all is to protect the founder's and officer's assets.
ahz wrote: protect the founder's and officer's assets. Yup, that's what internet says! Never forget: "Stay kul and happy" (I.A.)
David's thoughts / dnhsoftware.org / MyHTMLTidy -
Yeah, I am ignorant (old story), bad mannered sexist, and I am hitting on Lauren (*). Great :sigh: *nothing personal, you started with that Never forget: "Stay kul and happy" (I.A.)
David's thoughts / dnhsoftware.org / MyHTMLTidydnh wrote: hitting on Lauren LOL! That's not what I meant. She just sounded like she wanted to kick your a**, that's all. LOL. No worries, didn't mean it personal, didn't take it personal. Just having fun. Anyone who gets offended by some anonymous webhead posting has some serious psychological issues regardless of how offensive or tasteless the post. Cheers!
-
dnh wrote: hitting on Lauren LOL! That's not what I meant. She just sounded like she wanted to kick your a**, that's all. LOL. No worries, didn't mean it personal, didn't take it personal. Just having fun. Anyone who gets offended by some anonymous webhead posting has some serious psychological issues regardless of how offensive or tasteless the post. Cheers!
ahz wrote: She just sounded like she wanted to kick your a**, that's all. hmm. I still don't get your post then. Nevermind, after i finally got answer to my question, I can just easily forget this all :) ahz wrote: LOL. No worries, didn't mean it personal, didn't take it personal. I hope the same goes with Lauren, I really didn't want fight... ahz wrote: Anyone who gets offended by some anonymous webhead posting has some serious psychological issues regardless of how offensive or tasteless the post. I do have some serious psychological issues with people ignoring my questions (or changing topic for that matter). :( I have no problem with answers like "not your biz", "f** off" etc, but ignoring them drives me crazy. Never forget: "Stay kul and happy" (I.A.)
David's thoughts / dnhsoftware.org / MyHTMLTidy -
The thing is... how far removed from the immoral things do you have to be before you can stop considering yourself tainted by them?
If you are not doing or causing some immoral action, then you cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. Though, I'd say a wise person would not work with people who are doing immoral activity.
What about the laborers actually producing shoddy work, simply because it's easier and no-one seems to care?
It's on his own head, that person doing an immoral activity; because no one seemingly cares has nothing to do with whether or not a job should be done right.
but what about the shareholders pressuring that guy to increase profits, with no thought to the consequences?
You can't say that shareholder pressure permits immoral activity. Shareholders have the knowledge that what they are doing is an elaborate gambling scheme. If they lose money, it's on their own heads, they knew there was risk involved. To say, "I was only doing immoral activity XYZ because the shareholds pressured my company to make money", is nothing more than a poor excuse for immoral behavior. The shareholders themselves are not immoral; they invested money into a corporation, helping it out, with the full knowledge that they risk losing all their money or doubling it. To say their dollar pressure causes immoral activity is wrong; as mentioned previously, pressure of having to make a profit does not permit immoral activity, thus, people committing the immoral activity are in the wrong.
Corporations are all too often just a mental game. A way of blaming someone else for your own weakness, your own greed. They are the manifestation of a culture of lust and cowardice.
I work for a corporation not for my own greed, but to provide for my family. Most will concur there is nothing immoral about that. Sure, we'd all like to have more money, but in the end, corporations are a way to make a living, both for employee and employer. Corporations also spawn competition, which more often than not, results in better products, possibly improving or advancing humanity as a whole.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Cops & Robbers Judah Himango
-- modified at 15:44 Tuesday 30th August, 2005
Judah Himango wrote: It's on his own head, that person doing an immoral activity; because no one seemingly cares has nothing to do with whether or not a job should be done right. If you are hired for a job, it is your duty to do that job well, right? Whether that job is painting a house, or supervising those painting the house, or hiring people to supervise painters, or instructing someone to hire supervisors, it's your job, and it's on your head if it isn't done right. Judah Himango wrote: The shareholders themselves are not immoral; they invested money into a corporation, helping it out, with the full knowledge that they risk losing all their money or doubling it. And so they have responsibility only to their pockets? Bah. You invest in a company to make money, and who would leave such a thing to chance? If you are a major stakeholder in an operation that you see as doing poorly because of the man at the top, then you work to have that man replaced. If he doesn't want to be replaced, then he does what he has to do to make you happy. Judah Himango wrote: To say their dollar pressure causes immoral activity is wrong; as mentioned previously, pressure of having to make a profit does not permit immoral activity, thus, people committing the immoral activity are in the wrong. What causes immoral activity? Who can say that one external factor has more influence than another? A man is immoral because of what he does, not because of what others do to him. But i cannot say this leaves blameless those who pressure the man, for though they may be blameless of his crime they are guilty of coercion. And this is what i mean, when i say that corporation is a game: when there is a situation, when one man asks another to commit a crime, and threatens to injure or promises to reward him, that is seen as a crime in itself. But we establish a system where no-one has to ask, where market forces are left to threaten or reward, and where the crime is left to be devised by the individual. And we say, only blame the individual, because they are free to do what they chose... though they must live and make choices within the system we have devised. Judah Himango wrote: I work for a corporation not for my own greed, but to provide for my family. Most will concur there is nothing immoral about that. Working to provide for your family? Such a motivation is honorable. Is your work
-
ahz wrote: She just sounded like she wanted to kick your a**, that's all. hmm. I still don't get your post then. Nevermind, after i finally got answer to my question, I can just easily forget this all :) ahz wrote: LOL. No worries, didn't mean it personal, didn't take it personal. I hope the same goes with Lauren, I really didn't want fight... ahz wrote: Anyone who gets offended by some anonymous webhead posting has some serious psychological issues regardless of how offensive or tasteless the post. I do have some serious psychological issues with people ignoring my questions (or changing topic for that matter). :( I have no problem with answers like "not your biz", "f** off" etc, but ignoring them drives me crazy. Never forget: "Stay kul and happy" (I.A.)
David's thoughts / dnhsoftware.org / MyHTMLTidyHmmm, this conversation seems to be entering a rathole. Oh well. What was your question anyway? about the non-profit corporation? They do exist, regardless of Lauren's rantings. And they cannot legally make a profit. That doesn't mean some of the people leading the non-profit aren't making a potload of money. But, I think, that's a different story and question to Lauren's rantings. Oh, by the way, please take all my postings with a grain of salt -- I do mean them in good-spirited humor. Good luck in school! yes I went to your site.
-
Franky, I don't know a thing about it. But it is written on the internet! :-D What I understand from google it makes things (e.g. making money) easier for stockholders. As for non profit corp., this link again[^] Never forget: "Stay kul and happy" (I.A.)
David's thoughts / dnhsoftware.org / MyHTMLTidyI phrased that question badly. :-O Of course, an individual corporation may have one goal, while another may have completely different objectives. But what is the purpose in forming a corporation? What is the purpose in allowing them? From your link, it would seem that the common ground for both commercial and non-profit corporations would be protection from personal liability. Which brings up my second question above - why do we allow such a thing? That is, what benefit does Society gain from allowing such an entity to be created?
-
If you can't or won't explain yourself, that's fine, I was only curious to understand the thinking behind the "all corporations are bad" idea, which is often rampant in the web's various tech peanut galleries, such as Slashdot.
btw stop trying to make me a spokes person for anything anti-corporate
I didn't, you did. You said in your first post, and I quote, "im as anti-corporation as anyone", implying that you are anti-corporate as others seemingly are.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Cops & Robbers Judah Himango
Hi Judah. I won't presume to speak for Lauren, but it seems clear that you have taken something simple she stated and attempted to turn it into something else, for which I wouldn't blame Lauren should she be frustrated by it. As I read this thread, I got frustrated by it. Lauren wrote: "im as anti-corporation as anyone"... You turned it into: "all corporations are bad"... that's not what she wrote. Lauren wrote: "i dont work for a corporation and i never will... its not compatible with my view of life"... You turned it into "corporations are evil"... that's not what she wrote. Lauren wrote: "i think most corporations put profit above all other considerations and measure any venture by its profit potential ... that is where i 100% disagree with them ..." You wrote to her: "If you can't or won't explain yourself, that's fine, I was only curious to understand the thinking behind the 'all corporations are bad' idea" I think Lauren explained herself quite well, and frankly given how you responded, she was right in assuming that further explanation would do her no good. Are you sure you paid attention to what she actually wrote, as opposed to what you *think* she meant? I appreciate the points she made. You have created an entire discussion line that suggested she said something different. I think you made some interesting points too, even eloquently, but you were discussing something different, and again, I wouldn't blame Lauren should she be frustrated by your lack of attention to what she *actually wrote*.