Re: Tahirih Justice Center-Association with Anti-NGO/anti-environmentalist corporations

On Nov 22, 9:16 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 21 Nov, 05:28, maybeiam...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Nov 20, 9:59 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

BTW, are you Bill Ayers, the former terrorist who pals around with Barack
Obama?

- All Bad

The thing is, I am actually not attempting to cast guilt by mere
association-though I think when POWERFUL interests and close ties are
involved, double standards and conflicts of interest most certainly
arise from particular types of association.

That's EXACTLY what you are doing!

Notice in the post of mine you quoted (which maybe I should have
highlighted for you) I said PARTICULAR TYPES OF ASSOCIATION. That's
really the key here. Friendship/casual personal association is one
type. Business/monetary, political association is another, especially
when particular representations are made to the public about the
nature of an organization's activities. Exactly what a person/company/
NGO/'religious body' is 'guilty' of because of that association is
another. Maybe absolutely nothing. Maybe, as I said, they have no
idea what the OTHER ASSOCIATIONS within a corporate body mean in terms
of the POWER AND INFLUENCE they wield. Notice that I emphasized that I
do not believe that personal association (for example, being a
volunteer/working for the TJC) NECESSARILY makes you 'guilty' of
anything, or is evidence of malicious intent (though it may lead you
to other, more significant connections). It depends how much you know,
what your role is in an organization, and to whom you answer (ie if
you answer to a board, a political party or the hierarchy of a
religious organization) That is POWER AND INFLUENCE defined by the
TYPE of association. If it's your job to disclose your political
affiliations to the tax department, you better be damn sure you do it.
If you don't, you're guilty of breaking the law. And no matter how
good to look, how righteous you seem, you deserve to be held
accountable by law.

The only piece of actual fact you've cast at the TJC is "hey - they
take donations from these people, and I say these people are dodgy"

I'm saying more than that. But I won't bore with what you so loosely
term 'spam'. Don't forget, a lot of what you/numerous other posters
here are saying about many of the critics who have come here or spoken
up anywhere else in similar ways, is that they're insane, or liars, or
worse.

To be honest, I find it difficult to take seriously that you REALLY
think that Sony is evil, and we should all stop buying their
electronic products right now.

As I've said before, corruption is corruption, corporate malpractice
is corporate malpractice. This is as much about the law, the way a
company/NGO/religious organization conducts its business, and the
protection of a community's rights and interests as it is about moral
judgments, though these are possible if you're not a total moral
relatavist. 

Electronics is hardly the dirtiest
industry in the world.  Your evidence from this thread suggests to me
that they are a firm which takes their image with environmentalists
seriously.  I mean, they seem to really care what rating they get in
the Greenpeace poll of good guys that you're talking about.

Oh yes, I'm sure they do. Seriously enough to monitor the interests of
critics and devote a task-force to systematically determining means of
silencing them. Sound familiar? Are you saying that these kinds of
activities are acceptable? If you do, it would be a shame to find out
that the organization you defend here (or whose critics you constantly
attempt to take to task, and have done so for the past 8 years) is
involved in anything similar.

If they were *really* Evil as you try to suggest, surely they wouldn't
care how many rivers they polluted, how many children in China worked
in their factories, or what people at Greenpeace think of them.

Paul

Caring what people think about you because of deeply held moral
conviction or a system of values is one thing. Caring what people
think because it's in the interests of your corporation to look good,
and not have people boycotting your products (for environmental issues
perhaps, as many corporations now realize consumers care about this
and shape their buying habits accordingly) or bringing legal action to
bear against a group for corporate malpractice is another. Simple
marketing and protection of corporate interests, and the raison de'tre
of corporate decision making, which overrides personal/group moral
codes.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: dead man talkin
    ... just did not seem to fit (the other saying that plum ... saying that you could not care less that a wonderful ... at great risk an enterprise competing in the molding, ... that your care level about this wonderful town semi- ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: bettas in plastic cups - bettas.jpg (0/1)
    ... >>> or fish in this....if you can't provide a proper home it is ... >>> giving a home to....I don't care what it is, ... > If I might be so brash, that sounds like a cop-out. ... It's like saying that criminals will always find ...
    (rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc)
  • Re: Official definition of call-by-value (Re: Finding the instance reference...)
    ... I'm not saying that there is no objective definition of value. ... I have an answer to that: if I don't care about upper, ... every string can be represented ... "Norwegian Blue" considered as a number in this fashion is ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Interview With May Pang , August 1, 2005
    ... >>I know you're trying to help, Jeff. ... Forgers are looking for people that are ... you..that I don't care. ... Ever heard the saying, "Nobody ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: Savanna apes
    ... and what your critics are saying. ... surprise everybody. ... Jeez Dimmy,  Do I have to write your posts now, too? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading