Tim Cook Rejects Politics of the NCPPR

Post by keeshawn » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 4:45 PM UTC

pdx wrote: post #101

keeshawn wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your point? Incidentally, what logical arguments would you recommend one use against people who have rejected science as a legitimate world view?

I think you have a couple of problems. 1) You're obviously a troll with a 20 hour old account, so you feel like you need to get trolling early today. 2) You assume that people who disagree with you on some topic have "rejected science as a legitimate world view". You should try to reexamine this assumption, as you may find out it's invalid.

Post by eropple » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:01 PM UTC

monkeyspaw wrote: post #39

dhoulb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree. Whether or not worker safety contributes to ROI should never be a question. Same with environmental impact.

I disagree, mostly because you presented your opinion as black and white. Apple has, what, > 10k workers? If it cost them $100 billion to prevent one software worker from getting carpal tunnel, your statement suggests that cost should be born by Apple. Similarly, if it cost the cumulative GDP of the US to prevent N amount of pollution, your statement suggests that Apple should go bankrupt preventing that pollution. B…

Post by monkeyspaw » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 5:49 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #123

monkeyspaw wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, mostly because you presented your opinion as black and white. Apple has, what, > 10k workers? If it cost them $100 billion to prevent one software worker from getting carpal tunnel, your statement suggests that cost should be born by Apple. Similarly, if it cost the cumulative GDP of the US to prevent N amount of pollution, your statement suggests that Apple should go bankrupt preventing that pollution. B…

> The laws of economics mean companies have to assign dollar values to human life and safety, as much as we dislike the feeling it gives us. They have to do no such thing. They choose to do so, and some people choose to give them a pass for it once the cost reaches a certain level. See how enjoyable pedantry is? You knew what he meant just like I knew what you meant.

Post by MaysonL » Sat, Mar 01, 2014, 8:13 PM UTC

briandh wrote: post #105

nikster wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't a think tank basically the same as lobbyists, e.g. legalized corruption? Think tanks push an agenda, which creates laws beneficial to the business interests of the think tank's backers, which creates $Bns in profits. In that view, think tanks are probably the most profitable business there is. Certainly the highest ROI when it works out. Politics can be bought for hundreds of thousands, but bring in billions.

No. In the US, many (most?) think tanks are 501(c)(3) nonprofits -- NCPPR included -- and cannot make lobbying a primary activity [1] More broadly, think tanks are groups of like-minded people expressing their opinions, typically about how governments should be run. The fact that they accept donations in order to be able to work full time on the cause and to extend the reach of their advocacy, and that many of those…

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 02, 2014, 4:59 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #80

I think Tim Cook is ready for a run for Congress. It's classic politician - "we're doing the right thing, and we're not going to disclose to you how much it costs you to do it, because it's the right thing, and if you don't like this just STFU and GTFO". Indeed, what the gall has the shareholder to ask the executive how much the policy costs him! One should soundly reject this novel and outrageous concept of executiv…