SCOTUS decides for Hobby Lobby

[derspiess]

Self-righteous consumerism has its limits, I suppose.

[CountDeMoney]

Fuckers dont get my business again until they either
1) support teh gays getting married, or
2) get that banana creme pie shake back on the menu.  Goddamn.  I mean, real bananas and chunks of pie crust.

Bah, who am I kidding.  I was there last Friday.  Gays are on their own on this one.

[CountDeMoney]

Self-righteous consumerism has its limits, I suppose.

When it comes to chicken nuggets and badass milkshakes, you bet your fucking fetuses it does.

[Admiral Yi]

Why? Money exchanged in a transaction is money to buy what you're buying, no more, no less. There's no moral impingement as to what happens after that. Money donated to a cause is money donated to a cause. I don't see how there is any moral or rational relationship between what I buy and what happens with that "money" right after I hand it over. It's no longer my property at that point.

This POV is a choice, much as Meri's POV is a choice.

[OttoVonBismarck]

This POV is a choice, much as Meri's POV is a choice.

Oh I agree there. Much as developing a profession, having kids when you're financially able to raise them and having a good life vs being poor with no education and too many kids is a choice.

I think my point was her choice was wrong and mine was right, in case you missed that part of it.

[Valmy]

So if I discover a business I do business with is a front for organized crime it would be irrational for me to then do business with one of their competitors? 

[Berkut]

So if I discover a business I do business with is a front for organized crime it would be irrational for me to then do business with one of their competitors? 

I think the lesson here is that it depends on whether or not they have fucking awesome nuggets and shakes.

[OttoVonBismarck]

So if I discover a business I do business with is a front for organized crime it would be irrational for me to then do business with one of their competitors?

Are you committing a crime by doing business with the front? Is it immoral to do lawful and morally appropriate business with someone who otherwise commits crimes?

In the example of a front, I'd argue you are contributing to their ability to maintain a front for their crimes by giving it legitimate business. So in that scenario there is a moral impingement to doing business with them. But if you have a neighbor that you know sells drugs, is it immoral to pay him to shovel snow out of your drive way? I'd argue it is not, since it is in no way connected to his drug dealing. Whether you choose to try and get him arrested or busted for his drug dealing is a separate moral decision unconnected to paying him to shovel snow.

[Admiral Yi]

Oh I agree there. Much as developing a profession, having kids when you're financially able to raise them and having a good life vs being poor with no education and too many kids is a choice.

I think my point was her choice was wrong and mine was right, in case you missed that part of it.

I did, mainly because you didn't supply any reasons why you thought your choice was better.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I did, mainly because you didn't supply any reasons why you thought your choice was better.

I guess I thought impeccable internal logical consistency and the unassailable ethical arguments did that.

[The Brain]

I got terrible shakes.

[Syt]

So, Otto, what you're saying is that you wouldn't mind buying from a company that donates heavily to an organization that wants to create a fundamentalist Muslim state with Sharia law in the US, as long as the company and the organization work within the law?

Good to know! 

[crazy canuck]

It matters to me that I don't support certain entities, like the whole Alliance for Marriage thing. Some companies directly contribute to those organizations through corporate donations, and others do it from their personal income. I don't necessarily mind the personal income thing since that's their paycheck to do with as they please, but the corporate donations thing means that my money is going pretty much straight from me to that organization. I'd rather not do that.

Why? Money exchanged in a transaction is money to buy what you're buying, no more, no less. There's no moral impingement as to what happens after that. Money donated to a cause is money donated to a cause. I don't see how there is any moral or rational relationship between what I buy and what happens with that "money" right after I hand it over. It's no longer my property at that point.

If you have the choice between two merchants to obtain the same product and merchant A finincially supports [fill in an activity you find odious] and merchant B financially supports [fill in activity you strongly support] you would be a bit silly to support merchant A through the purchase of their product.  Through that financial transaction you deem to be neutral you are in fact providing the means by with the merchant is able to support the cause you find odious.

There has been a lot written about the impact of choices made by consumers.  I am not sure how one can deny a relationship between the choices a consumer makes and the world they get.

[Ideologue]

It matters to me that I don't support certain entities, like the whole Alliance for Marriage thing. Some companies directly contribute to those organizations through corporate donations, and others do it from their personal income. I don't necessarily mind the personal income thing since that's their paycheck to do with as they please, but the corporate donations thing means that my money is going pretty much straight from me to that organization. I'd rather not do that.

How much of your money is going to the cause you dislike, though?  Is it enough to really lose sleep over?  I have a hard time understanding that mentality-- I have enough things in life to juggle without worrying about a company using three cents from my purchase to support Planned Parenthood.

I think it is something of a sliding scale.

For example, I find Chik-fil-A's donating to anti-human rights organizations completely reprehensible. Not quite as bad as the Holocaust, but close.

On the other hand, Chik-fil-A nuggets and sandwhiches are fucking awesome. So yeah...have to find something else to boycott.

It's impossible to meaningfully participate in the economy without doing something evil, so I don't bother boycotting shit.

[crazy canuck]

It's impossible to meaningfully participate in the economy without doing something evil, so I don't bother boycotting shit.

I accept you dont bother.  But your reason for doing so is you want a revolution and so why would you reduce the the evil that you hope will provoke others to action.