Speaking as someone who has chosen a life of public transit and walking over driving (I did have a drivers licence at one point), there are considerations more important to me and society as a whole than "pleasantness", like the air we all breathe, rediculous car insurance costs, my sanity and my time.
P.S. Everyone who voted the parent comment up is a lazy bastard. Get off your fat arses and walk once in a while.
That's not unique to CTA. That is the nature of public transportation - you will always deal with those characters.
Its no big deal. The usual response is to ignore them and generally they will go away (unless you are up very late at night). Nothing too different from ignoring the beggars coming up to you during a traffic stop. I am not sure why the OTP is making an issue out of it.
The fear of rejection isn't something to be studied or perplexed over as much as challenged head on.
I've done the Rejection Therapy 30 day challenge http://rejectiontherapy.com and it revealed some of the games my mind uses to disguise the truth about my fears and motives.
Some of my fears weren't really the fear of rejection as I thought but deeper issues. I had no idea until I started turning over some rocks and seeing what was underneath. I feel like now I understand what the real issues are. I know myself better.
I moved all my domains when the former CEO shot and killed an elephant, then gloated about it on video. It was both shocking and saddening for me.
Now the elephant killing is kind of a Voight-Kampff test I use. Anyone who isn't bothered with the elephant shooting wouldn't be my friend. I wouldn't want that type of person as a business partner or employee either. I don't think I could trust them.
I certainly wouldn't want to do business with a company that endorses or associates itself with killing intelligent, peaceful animals.
He killed it for sport, the rest is an excuse. If he were concerned about the community food supply he could have donated food. Anyone who hires "booth babes" for spokespeople and is a fan of 24 (a show I used to work for) hunts because he enjoys it. Bob Parsons does not spend thousands of dollars to kill elephants for humanitarian reasons.
Well I think you'd be hard pressed to find a hunter in the US that hunts only for the food gained. Maybe spending 70,000 dollars is sick, but I would hardly call those who hunt for "sport" sick. I myself have never hunted, but I imagine it satisfies some urge in those who do it.
Do you really think there were a bunch of villagers sitting in Africa, saying to themselves "our crops are being destroyed by this elephant, and we are so hungry—if only a rich American could fly halfway around the world to shoot an elephant for us?"
If you watched the original un-cut video, you would've seen the hungry villagers in Godaddy T-shirts and Caps skinning and chopping the elephant. That was disgusting. He thought of making it as a campaign, but when it backfired, they edited the video,
I don't think killing an elephant away from any village or crops proves that the elephant isn't a nuisance for that village, or that it routinely destroys the crops.
It also sounds reasonable that you can pay the local authorities in Zimbabwe to get the privilege to fulfill your own great white hunter dreams by shooting a problematic elephant.
I personally think how much of the video is spent justifying it is quite pathetic, and can also see how others might be offended by the great white hunter style.
Saying your business can do whatever it damn well pleases because you own it is like saying I can drive my car any way I want. Not so. Your actions affect others. You are using public infrastructure and there are rules.
Move to an island where you can be all by your lonesome and run a business any way you want there.
I'm pretty sure that mhartl means that there (is|should be) no universally mandated goal of a business (e.g. maximize stock price, maximize market share, grow quarterly). Not that businesses should be allowed to break laws.
The goals of the business should be the goals of the owner not the goals of some economist or capitalist pundit.
That isn't much of an argument you are presenting though -- you could argue against a person being allowed to do anything based on that. The reason I can't drive a car the way I want is that it represents a clear and present danger to the health of third-parties. On the other hand running my business the way I want doesn't present a clear harm to others, so I can't.
The BP oil spill is a clear example of dangers to others, as is the credit crash. There are numerous other examples, one given in the article itself, where the actions of business can do great damage to individuals. Is my toothpaste safe? What about my tomatoes?
This seems like a bizarre leap from what mhartl was talking about when he said "A business should do what the owners want it to do", which is what tomjen3 was defending. Given the choice between a reasonable interpretation of someone's comment and an unreasonable one, it seems unkind to choose the unreasonable one without even asking for clarification.
When you hear someone say something like "People should be free to choose their own destiny," do you come in guns-a-blazin' about how they shouldn't be free to choose a destiny where they kill people or beat children? Because that's usually not what people mean when they say that. I think mhartl and tomjen3 were just suggesting that this same principle applies even when the person is a business owner — that people don't suddenly have any one particular goal forced on them just because they happen to be running a business.
The credit crash was due as much to people taking on obligations they ought not to have taken on, as it was about lenders making loans they ought not to have made.
"On the other hand running my business the way I want doesn't present a clear harm to others, so I can't."
I beg to differ. How corporations are run harms so many others that it amazes me that you would even say that. What about all the "down-sized" workers whose pensions were gutted and benefits taken away - or the workers who lose their lives because companies care more about the bottom line than they do about safety?
tomjen3 said "the way I want", not "any way I want". There's an important distinction. Just because some companies act like that doesn't mean all business owners - and particularly tomjen3 - do.
Sabastian, this battle with S&S is nothing. The real battle is inside of you.
You are a smart and interesting person with a lot of weapons. Call a cease-fire. Refocus your mind and observe your inner space. Then make a decision that will help as many people as possible.
P.S. Everyone who voted the parent comment up is a lazy bastard. Get off your fat arses and walk once in a while.