SCOTUS decides for Hobby Lobby

[Agelastus]

But surely you can understand someone NOT choosing to do so.

I never said I didn't; my position is that although I understand the choice exists I think it has no place in general in purchasing decisions. But that's just where my values lie compared to yours.

So in my example you consider not going to be the inconceivable action?  Since it is a good meal at a reasonable price it must be eaten, and if I don't like the people selling it I'll skip out on the bill?  Since you are not paying why does the price matter?

Please note the two words "in general" in my response.

But if you insist on continuing with your absurd example the key words for me should the situation ever arise would be "good meal", nor "reasonable price". 

[Agelastus]

If the local chapter of the KKK held a fundraising dinner and they were serving a really nice meal at a reasonable price, would you go?

One of the few cases where the moral choice is probably to "Dine and Dash" (assuming I remembered the phrase correctly.)

But surely you can understand someone NOT choosing to do so.

I never said I didn't; my position is that although I understand the choice exists I think it has no place in general in purchasing decisions. But that's just where my values lie compared to yours.

So if you knew that a portion of the profits of store A went to fund something you thought was odious you would continue to shop there because you believe such a thing plays no role in your purchasing decision?

I personally find the concept of "FairTrade" to be foolish, odious and nothing but a placebo yet I still shop at the Co-Op that was the principle pusher of the concept in my country.

[frunk]

Please note the two words "in general" in my response.

But if you insist on continuing with your absurd example the key words for me should the situation ever arise would be "good meal", nor "reasonable price". 

I can tone it down if you want.  Pick a political party you dislike.  Would you go to one of their fundraising dinners?

[merithyn]

I call bullshit on you not understanding the mindset. If you have two lemonade stands side by side, one with the kid wanting to sell lemonade to buy a bike and one kid selling lemonade to buy 10 pounds of candy to eat by himself, where would you spend your money?

Just because I asked what the kids are trying to buy and you didn't doesn't make me stupid.

Not really a good analogy, as it doesn't relate at all to real day to day consumer activity.  To me buying lemonade from a kid who has a lemonade stand is primarily a donation.  If I'm buying, it's probably not because I'm really thirsty-- it's because I want to help the kid out. 

And if I were in that scenario I'd probably buy from both and not bother asking what they plan to do with the money.

I accounted for that.

I have zero objection to you not caring where your money goes. I'm still not sure why there is antipathy on why I do care where mine goes.

[crazy canuck]

I call bullshit on you not understanding the mindset. If you have two lemonade stands side by side, one with the kid wanting to sell lemonade to buy a bike and one kid selling lemonade to buy 10 pounds of candy to eat by himself, where would you spend your money?

Just because I asked what the kids are trying to buy and you didn't doesn't make me stupid.

Not really a good analogy, as it doesn't relate at all to real day to day consumer activity.  To me buying lemonade from a kid who has a lemonade stand is primarily a donation.  If I'm buying, it's probably not because I'm really thirsty-- it's because I want to help the kid out. 

And if I were in that scenario I'd probably buy from both and not bother asking what they plan to do with the money.

Its funny that your side always dodges the issue by setting a counter example where you have no information.  The point is when you do have the information would it affect your purchasing decisions.

[Agelastus]

Please note the two words "in general" in my response.

But if you insist on continuing with your absurd example the key words for me should the situation ever arise would be "good meal", nor "reasonable price". 

I can tone it down if you want.  Pick a political party you dislike.  Would you go to one of their fundraising dinners?

If the food was good yes. If the food was good I would go to a Labour fundraiser. Or even a Green Party fundraiser. Despite their political views I might even get a good dinner conversation (Diane Abbott, for example - her political views tend to depress me, make me despise her, or infuriate me but her performance on a particular late night political show suggests she'd be a very entertaining conversationalist at a fundraising dinner) - and if I didn't I'd still have something to laugh at albeit sotto voce.

Wouldn't donate more than the minimum neccessary though.

And if it was the BNP I'd dash...

I told you that "good food" would be the key determinant.

Seriously I'm not sure political parties are a good test case here.

[crazy canuck]

If the food was good yes. If the food was good I would go to a Labour fundraiser. Or even a Green Party fundraiser. Despite their political views I might even get a good dinner conversation (Diane Abbott, for example - her political views tend to depress me, make me despise her, or infuriate me but her performance on a particular late night political show suggests she'd be a very entertaining conversationalist at a fundraising dinner) - and if I didn't I'd still have something to laugh at albeit sotto voce.

Wouldn't donate more than the minimum neccessary though.

And if it was the BNP I'd dash...

I told you that "good food" would be the key determinant.

Seriously I'm not sure political parties are a good test case here.

So its not that you think comsumers engage in morally nuetral conduct.  Its that you have no morals. 

[derspiess]

Its funny that your side always dodges the issue by setting a counter example where you have no information.

You're ignoring the part where I said I considered it a donation.  In that scenario I'd buy from both to be nice and really wouldn't care what they did with the money.

The point is when you do have the information would it affect your purchasing decisions.

In my usual shopping/spending, no it wouldn't.  Believe me, I get plenty of "information".  I come across Facebook and blog posts all the time saying don't shop at this place or order from that place.  A recent one that springs to mind is Starbucks-- I was told I shouldn't go there because they support gay marriage and are anti-gun.  Sorry, it's not worth my time to alter my consumer behavior like that. 

[Agelastus]

If the food was good yes. If the food was good I would go to a Labour fundraiser. Or even a Green Party fundraiser. Despite their political views I might even get a good dinner conversation (Diane Abbott, for example - her political views tend to depress me, make me despise her, or infuriate me but her performance on a particular late night political show suggests she'd be a very entertaining conversationalist at a fundraising dinner) - and if I didn't I'd still have something to laugh at albeit sotto voce.

Wouldn't donate more than the minimum neccessary though.

And if it was the BNP I'd dash...

I told you that "good food" would be the key determinant.

Seriously I'm not sure political parties are a good test case here.

So its not that you think comsumers engage in morally nuetral conduct.  Its that you have no morals. 

I think there's only one appropriate response here...

"You might think that; I couldn't possibly comment."

[crazy canuck]

If the food was good yes. If the food was good I would go to a Labour fundraiser. Or even a Green Party fundraiser. Despite their political views I might even get a good dinner conversation (Diane Abbott, for example - her political views tend to depress me, make me despise her, or infuriate me but her performance on a particular late night political show suggests she'd be a very entertaining conversationalist at a fundraising dinner) - and if I didn't I'd still have something to laugh at albeit sotto voce.

Wouldn't donate more than the minimum neccessary though.

And if it was the BNP I'd dash...

I told you that "good food" would be the key determinant.

Seriously I'm not sure political parties are a good test case here.

So its not that you think comsumers engage in morally nuetral conduct.  Its that you have no morals. 

I think there's only one appropriate response here...

"You might think that; I couldn't possibly comment."

[derspiess]

I have zero objection to you not caring where your money goes. I'm still not sure why there is antipathy on why I do care where mine goes.

No antipathy on my part.  I'm struggling to understand the mindset.  Like I said, the best way I can relate to it is that it's like a hobby.

[frunk]

If the food was good yes. If the food was good I would go to a Labour fundraiser. Or even a Green Party fundraiser. Despite their political views I might even get a good dinner conversation (Diane Abbott, for example - her political views tend to depress me, make me despise her, or infuriate me but her performance on a particular late night political show suggests she'd be a very entertaining conversationalist at a fundraising dinner) - and if I didn't I'd still have something to laugh at albeit sotto voce.

Wouldn't donate more than the minimum neccessary though.

And if it was the BNP I'd dash...

I told you that "good food" would be the key determinant.

Seriously I'm not sure political parties are a good test case here.

Is there a tipping point where political distaste would override gastric pleasure?  What if the choice is between a reasonably good meal at a neutral restaurant versus a slightly better meal (same price) at a Green Party fundraiser?  Presumably at some point you would care that the money is going to the Greens.

[Agelastus]

If the food was good yes. If the food was good I would go to a Labour fundraiser. Or even a Green Party fundraiser. Despite their political views I might even get a good dinner conversation (Diane Abbott, for example - her political views tend to depress me, make me despise her, or infuriate me but her performance on a particular late night political show suggests she'd be a very entertaining conversationalist at a fundraising dinner) - and if I didn't I'd still have something to laugh at albeit sotto voce.

Wouldn't donate more than the minimum neccessary though.

And if it was the BNP I'd dash...

I told you that "good food" would be the key determinant.

Seriously I'm not sure political parties are a good test case here.

Is there a tipping point where political distaste would override gastric pleasure?  What if the choice is between a reasonably good meal at a neutral restaurant versus a slightly better meal (same price) at a Green Party fundraiser?  Presumably at some point you would care that the money is going to the Greens.

To be honest, no. Materially speaking there is no way that any financial contribution I could make to the Greens would have any noticeable effect on their chances in elections, either locally in my District/County or nationally. In those circumstances my own personal satisfaction would (and rationally should) automatically win.

The dinner would provide me with -

(a) food
(b) flattery
(c) amusement

for no appreciable political cost and certainly no moral cost.

As I said in the context of this discussion political parties are probably a bad test case.

Besides, I don't really understand why you are continuing this - I've already used the qualificatory words "in general" in a previous post.

Are you trying to ascertain whether or not I have any morals since CC has suggested I lack any?

[frunk]

To be honest, no. Materially speaking there is no way that any financial contribution I could make to the Greens would have any noticeable effect on their chances in elections, either locally in my District/County or nationally. In those circumstances my own personal satisfaction would (and rationally should) automatically win.

The dinner would provide me with -

(a) food
(b) flattery
(c) amusement

for no appreciable political cost and certainly no moral cost.

As I said in the context of this discussion political parties are probably a bad test case.

Besides, I don't really understand why you are continuing this - I've already used the qualificatory words "in general" in a previous post.

Are you trying to ascertain whether or not I have any morals since CC has suggested I lack any?

I'm just surprised that on an intellectual level you aren't bothered by the fact that the Greens could claim you as a supporter with just a hot meal.  It makes me think that "dislike" might be too strong a word for your feelings toward them.

[Agelastus]

To be honest, no. Materially speaking there is no way that any financial contribution I could make to the Greens would have any noticeable effect on their chances in elections, either locally in my District/County or nationally. In those circumstances my own personal satisfaction would (and rationally should) automatically win.

The dinner would provide me with -

(a) food
(b) flattery
(c) amusement

for no appreciable political cost and certainly no moral cost.

As I said in the context of this discussion political parties are probably a bad test case.

Besides, I don't really understand why you are continuing this - I've already used the qualificatory words "in general" in a previous post.

Are you trying to ascertain whether or not I have any morals since CC has suggested I lack any?

I'm just surprised that on an intellectual level you aren't bothered by the fact that the Greens could claim you as a supporter with just a hot meal.  It makes me think that "dislike" might be too strong a word for your feelings toward them.

I absolutely despise them; they're short-sighted, single issue focussed, obsessive morons (with a few honourable exceptions, I do concede.) However, I can see the potential for humour in the situation you have posited. And what would the world be without humour?

And as for the Greens claiming I was a "supporter" why should I care? My vote is still my own and not theirs. What people I despise think is not my concern; those whose opinion I do value, such as my family or the majority of Languish posters, know damn well where my political opinions lie. That's all that matters.