Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

jacquesmattheij.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 334 posts

Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

#161

Post by bpodgursky »

Tichy wrote: post #35
orbenn wrote: post #12

This is stupid. If the elephant is going to be shot by a warden anyway, WHY NOT let some rich american shoot it? Why does it matter WHO shoots the elephant? It doesn't! If you want to argue about whether the elephant SHOULD have been killed, that's fine. There is plenty to debate there. But who does the shooting is of no importance. That said he's right that as a CEO you represent your company--especially when you're…

He explained it - it gives an incentive for marking more elephants as "problem elephants" than needed. I wonder if a couple of fence (electric) might be a better solution than shooting the elephant. And all I saw in the video was a couple of square meters of trampled grass. I wonder what animal court in the world would give the death sentence for that.

It might look just like trampled grass, to you, but it's Sorghum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghum) which a subsistence farmer was growing so he could feed himself, and to him it was the difference between eating and starving. It's ridiculous to glibly dismiss the farmer's worries about STARVING because you didn't see much damage in the video.

And do you really think a poor village in remote Zimbabwe is going to have the electricity (and money) to put up an electric fence around all their fields?

Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

#162

Post by fjh »

powertower wrote: post #142
fjh wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allow me to point you to these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring Not to mention that you are making an awful lot of unwarranted assumptions about the outraged people.

You are using the above as buzzwords. Making a valid and logical declaration based on personal experiences with the society he/she lives in is not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is incorrect reasoning. An opinionated, consumption-oriented, and selfish society is not one that produces people that have: 1. Either fasted, or have gone hungry (even the povery line class has been able to eat - a lot of food is cheap…

> You are using the above as buzzwords.

I agree that my reply to you was not very articulate. I originally started explaining why your points were not relevant to the question whether his behaviour was morally acceptable, but then I realised that I would essentially be explaining the above fallacies, even though there are already better explanations available.

I may have misread your post, but to me it looked like you were trying to invalidate people's criticism of his behaviour by making (speculative) statements about their behaviour or character. I know at least one person who is angry about this and is a strict vegetarian who has done lots of humanitarian work in Africa. Anyway, if I misread your post and that was not the point you were making, I apologise.

Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

#164

Post by peterwwillis »

protomyth wrote: post #68
peterwwillis wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they do. Any publicity is good publicity.

"Any publicity is good publicity" - tell that to Enron and Lindsay Lohan.

What in the world does Enron have to do with a publicity stunt? They committed fraud and went bankrupt. How is that like shooting an elephant and putting it on youtube?

And Lohan, she's still making movies. Where's the problem?

Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

#165

Post by illumin8 »

dpcan wrote: post #63
c2 wrote: post #50

I guess I'll be the lone discenting voice and say I don't think it's that bad. Bob Parsons has always run his company the way he wants, and he has particular freedom to do so since he has zero investors and is the sole owner. He does certain things for shock value, such as the super bowl commercials, which by the way caused outage with a completely different demographic of people. Slaughtering an elephant might offen…

Thank you. Agreed. He fed a village (or more), saved the crop, and it looks like the people there find this to be a noble act. Our U.S. grocery stores have stock piles of meat stacked in open refrigerators, butchered behind closed doors. Animals are fed and bred to be slaughtered so we can have a juicy burger and fries. Out of sight out of mind I guess. Now... MAYBE the CEO of a hugely popular brand should not have p…

I found it somewhat ironic that the villagers standing around cutting meat off the elephant seemed to do more damage by trampling the crops than the elephants did. Look at the last part of the video... between the elephants, hunters, and the entire village fighting over the meat, the poor farmers crops don't stand a chance.

Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

#166

Post by ohashi »

Untitled wrote: post #136
mayank wrote: post #91

As someone who has worked with ecologists in the field on a number of wildlife projects in rural Africa, I find this to be truly repugnant. There are many ways of controlling "problem elephants" other than killing them -- in fact, killing an elephant is almost never an option. If the villagers don't have the financial resources to implement non-lethal control measures, I'm sure Bob Parsons does.

> As someone who has worked with ecologists in the field on a number of wildlife projects in rural Africa, I find this to be truly repugnant. Really? You know that the majority of ecologists support Elephant Culling (killing elephant family groups wholesale from helicopters)? > There are many ways of controlling "problem elephants" other than killing them There is an oversupply of elephants and an undersupply of spac…

We're supposed to believe one hubpages articles that doesn't cite any sources other than this guy who claims to work at the national park? Sorry, I need better sources than this to be convinced.

Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

#167

Post by nhangen »

chc wrote: post #155
fenfir wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. Vegetarians have a problem eating meat, hence the vege- prefix. I'm a vegetarian and have no problem with killing, especially for food. I'm just not going to eat meat.

From context, it is clear that he's talking about people who are vegetarians for moral reasons (as are most people when they say "vegetarians believe X," since obviously if you're not a vegetarian for ideological reasons, no ideology can be inferred from your vegetarianism).

Thanks, you are correct.

Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

#169

Post by powertower »

fjh wrote: post #162
powertower wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are using the above as buzzwords. Making a valid and logical declaration based on personal experiences with the society he/she lives in is not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is incorrect reasoning. An opinionated, consumption-oriented, and selfish society is not one that produces people that have: 1. Either fasted, or have gone hungry (even the povery line class has been able to eat - a lot of food is cheap…

> You are using the above as buzzwords. I agree that my reply to you was not very articulate. I originally started explaining why your points were not relevant to the question whether his behaviour was morally acceptable, but then I realised that I would essentially be explaining the above fallacies, even though there are already better explanations available. I may have misread your post, but to me it looked like yo…

> I know at least one person who is angry about this and is a strict vegetarian who has done lots of humanitarian work in Africa.

Agreed. There are people like this in the world.

But they are few, and certainly not the majority.

My issue is not with what is moral, but with how easily people blame and demonize others.

Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

#170

Post by chc »

fistofjohnwayne wrote: post #151
Untitled wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As someone who has worked with ecologists in the field on a number of wildlife projects in rural Africa, I find this to be truly repugnant. Really? You know that the majority of ecologists support Elephant Culling (killing elephant family groups wholesale from helicopters)? > There are many ways of controlling "problem elephants" other than killing them There is an oversupply of elephants and an undersupply of spac…

There is an oversupply of humans and an undersupply of space. Killing a lone human male is no problem. I find it sad that a lot of damage is done to the ecosystem and to other animals (which may not be as pretty as humans) because some groups (such as the UN) opposed human culling. How long does it take for a tree to grow? How long for a beautiful Baobab? Do you know how quickly a human fucks up a tree? Humans are no…

This is a bit snarky, but I think it does represent a valid way of looking at things.
Post reply on HN