Loree Thomas wrote:
> --- Max More <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I understand the point you're making. See below.
> Close enough, though I thought it was obvious that I
> was referring to the shareholder's meeting.
> He did a subtle and dangerous thing there... he
> equated producing and selling art with condoning the
> view presented by the artist. Let's hope it's not
> indicative of a trend in the information/entertainment
Anyone who sells a product they do not stand behind as representative of
their own views posesses the same sort of amorality that sold pesticide
for use on humans in large quantities 60 years ago, herbicide for use in
southeast asia 30 years ago, and the most popular Democratic president
prior to Clinton saying about Pinochet, "Yeah, he's a son of a bitch,
but he's OUR son of a bitch." Being a person of concience demands that
you not be invested in companies that do not reflect your morals and
ethics. Since corporate boards of directors are in business to keep
shareholder value up and rising, causing a widespread selloff of stock
due to immoral or amoral corporate action violates their feduciary
> > 'm sure Chuck is no extropian, and I was probably
> > being politically
> > incorrect on this list to post that speech. But darn
> > it, I still like it.
> Heh... I feel like I'm on the wrong side of "PC" in
> this space.
Thats because the left created the concept of political correctness in
their dogma of revolution, their 'reeducation camps' and killing fields.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:46 MDT