Well, your response is telling as well. You night not notice, but there is a serious twist in your logic: why is it on McDonald's to feed the homeless? It shouldn't be and they cannot be called out for not doing it. By blaming companies for stuff like that, you obfuscate where the blame should really go: everyone in any form of government and everyone supporting bullshit narratives that social welfare and capitalism are polar opposites and cannot go together. Don't waste your energy on fucking companies. They will not foot the bill the government should.
If they paid their damn taxes in proportion to their use of our public services and share of income maybe the government could actually do that. But hey, you're the one who decided that the homeless person trying to survive was sufficient justification for more widespread corporate greed.
It's the governments responsibility to make companies pay their fair share of taxes.
Exactly. Don't blame fucking companies for doing what companies were always about to do. Blame the government for letting them. If you get mauled by a lion, you won't blame the lion, you (or your heirs) will blame the zoo for saving money on the fence. Why is it different with companies?
So because the zoo fucked up I shouldn't be upset with the lion for mauling people? You can be upset at two things simultaneously, and you sure as shit don't need to support making life harder for the people already being mauled.
That's some "Boys will be boys" defense right there.
there is no defense in there. I never defended the company. I just called your stance that companies ought to do social welfare unreasonable. I very much like everyone to do social welfare stuff, but to blame companies when they refuse to do what the fucking government should is just a pretty twisted stance, innit?
There's a difference between providing social welfare and not actively worsening the experience for paying customers to spite the vulnerable.
Well, your response is telling as well. You night not notice, but there is a serious twist in your logic: why is it on McDonald's to feed the homeless? It shouldn't be and they cannot be called out for not doing it. By blaming companies for stuff like that, you obfuscate where the blame should really go: everyone in any form of government and everyone supporting bullshit narratives that social welfare and capitalism are polar opposites and cannot go together. Don't waste your energy on fucking companies. They will not foot the bill the government should.
If they paid their damn taxes in proportion to their use of our public services and share of income maybe the government could actually do that. But hey, you're the one who decided that the homeless person trying to survive was sufficient justification for more widespread corporate greed.
It's the governments responsibility to make companies pay their fair share of taxes.
Exactly. Don't blame fucking companies for doing what companies were always about to do. Blame the government for letting them. If you get mauled by a lion, you won't blame the lion, you (or your heirs) will blame the zoo for saving money on the fence. Why is it different with companies?
So because the zoo fucked up I shouldn't be upset with the lion for mauling people? You can be upset at two things simultaneously, and you sure as shit don't need to support making life harder for the people already being mauled. That's some "Boys will be boys" defense right there.
there is no defense in there. I never defended the company. I just called your stance that companies ought to do social welfare unreasonable. I very much like everyone to do social welfare stuff, but to blame companies when they refuse to do what the fucking government should is just a pretty twisted stance, innit?
There's a difference between providing social welfare and not actively worsening the experience for paying customers to spite the vulnerable.