Amazon under investigation for violating trade sanctions.

So spitting gum on the sidewalk REALLY IS the moral equivalent of dumping radioactive waste on a nature preserve in your mind.

By that "logic", yes i am just as guilty, and anyone who TRIES and makes effort is just as bad as someone who makes no effort at all!

I do extend the benefit of doubt until someone literally says "i buy all my stuff from three scumbag companies because i want to spend as little as possible!"

Backpedal on your high horse a little more.

 

Whose back pedaling? You seem to confuse punishment for an infraction with guilt. Both are different. The fact one tries does not make them any less guilty.

I have not made any judgement on your intellect yet you have about mine. I assume you are smarter than that even though your actions say different.

How do you know the other person's economic situation? How do you know that is not their Achilles heel? Still not getting the benefit of the doubt statement? Why do you think I said in the very beginning to act like an adult; say your piece and be done with it.

EDIT: this is either a vendetta or an obsession take your pick. Neither is pretty but this is the picture being painted.

 

Not this shiz again.

 

Yawwwwwnnnnnn.

In before close

 

Nice false dichotomy logical fallacies there. Either an obsession or vendetta. CANT be anything else because you say so? Why? Pretty narrow perspective.

And so is the false dichotomy of the moral equivalence of ALL infractions or transgressions.

If you REALLY claim that ALL levels of infraction make one who tries their best to minimize their infractions JUST as guilty as someone else who doesnt do anything but cater to their own gratification, then you should check your philosophical premises.

 

One tries and still ends up buying from an unapproved company as apposed from someone who just purchased something from the same organization because they had the lowest price: explain how the two are different? They are both equally as guilty of buying from the same place.

And yes, this whole Amazon rant is amounting to either a vendetta or an obsession in my eyes. Three threads in such a short span all amounting to I hate Amazon. That came across loud and clear but there was a need for it to be stated over and over and over again. Sure if you tried you could find dirt on bigger and dirtier companies but then again, those others are not Amazon. After all we are supposed to accept that Amazon is evil because you said they are.

 

Its different like someone accidentally stepping on your toe once compared to someone who repeatedly does it intentionally.

The damage one does by constantly funding slavery and genocide in other countries by purchasing cheap goods in a race to the bottom at any cost business model vs someone who avoids buying from unethical companies whenever possible is also drastically different.

I mean, do you think a person who farts pollutes to the same degree as a factory farm? Does a single fart condemn one to the equivalence QUANTITATIVELY AS WELL AS QUALITATIVELY?

Thats where the fault in your argument lies. I agree with universal principles, but you are conflating that with equal QUANTITY. Thats fallacious.

Also look at it from a completely scientific perspective. In an emergent, self organized complex system, you can create feedback loops that fundamentally change the state of the systen.

That is precisely what has happened. The feedback loops i have issue with goes something like this. It used to be that things were not made by slave labor and imported on huge ships, while simultaneously making a few people billionaires and everyone else poor. Then free trade with communist dictatorships became a thing.

Once people realized you could get rich by selling out and outsourcing to what is essentially slave labor a lot of the time, either directly or because the goods are made with conflict resources, you create a situation(feedback loop) where, in order to compete, you must also have your product made by slave labor with conflict resources.

Now a lot of people say "see! Capitalism is evil!", but that is most definitely NOT capitalism. That is collusion with slave drivers at work. Capitalism is diametrically opposed to such practices, but thats a philosophical argument for a different thread.

So, how does one effect change in a complex system? Small perturbations can be used to change the weather, effectively. You can create feedback loops that become amplified over time and undermine stability in even the largest systems, completely changing their course the same way it was changed to the way it is now.

After all, the system in question grew enormous from tiny changes in the initial state. And are you kidding me? You think Amazon is the only dumpster i dont buy from?

 

Who cares to what degree. The fact remains both are guilty of the same thing. Just because on tries to lessen the impact does not negate the purchase. Those other "examples" have nothing to do with what others are being berated for. These examples you keep throwing is equivalent to me asking if you would be willing to forfeit your life to keep from funding such a company. We all know the answer to that even before it is asked.

You give yourself a pass because you try. Still just as guilty for that one purchase as a person you say does it continuously. The impact of that one purchase from either one has the same affect. The continuing purchases from the other individual has no bearing. That is a different conversation all together even though they are related. Who is to say that the purchase made by that individual who tries so desperately is not the one purchase that allows said evil company to finally rule the world? So it does not matter how many times one purchases from said company. It is just the simple fact that they did.

You can continue to pat yourself on the back but when purchases are made that "cannot" be helped...were you dying and that purchase allowed you to continue living? That is why I am saying hypocrite.

 

I gave myself a pass??? Pretty sure i didnt. And like i said, i do actually go without a lot of the time to avoid supporting said companies.

And heres the point which you still failed to get: the fewer people that fund such unethical companies, the less damage they do. But by your logic, i guess i shouldnt even bother trying because i cant do it perfectly?

Really, all youve done is attempt to win an argument with logical fallacy after fallacy, and now youre attempting to win it by ad hominem against a person who never claimed moral superiority by virtue of the fact that they try, rather i simply pointed out why i believe that trying is better than not trying...

 

Finally something that makes sense. If this was stated instead of this that or the other thing, none of this would have ballooned. But then again just could not resist closing the argument the way it was. Goes back to an axe to grind with Amazon.

 

Not really. It specifically says that your assumption that i only avoid one company is incorrect. Yes, Amazon and a bunch of other retail companies are worthy of the term "dumpster".

 

Nope, you refuse to accept that you give yourself a pass and berate someone for purchasing at said companies without knowing anything other than just what was said about why they shop the way they do. Not everyone Has the ability to make such choices based on lofty morals when food or electricity is a choice. You can condemn these stores but sometimes that is the only choice available. That is a prime example of a first world issue.

Have not attempted anything of the sort you claim. Trying to get you to see that you cannot berate anyone about their buying habits until yours is perfect. You are the one confusing the issue with the degree of the imperfection. Never said one thing about equating the degree of support offered by one to another.