dawdaway

Thanks mate, I'll happily take the last word. After all, how else would I heal those insecurities your have so poignantly diagnosed?

You seem incapable of doing anything other than dismissing anyone who raises any flaws with your logic. I sincerely hope you grow as a person.

Best of luck to you in life, Ole Fella. Cheers.

Ahh, sweet gotcha you found there fella. I don't think I need to explain to you the difference between members of the British government declaring Australia Terra-Nulius (with approximately 0 outcry from their citizens) and some bozo deciding that all Indigenous Australians don't believe in science. If you cant see the difference it's only because you choose not to.

Another informative and education comment. Clever as roo shit you are.

Your point was hardly "real" either bucko, you ascribe a large group of people with a specific belief (without any citations) and then try to skip out of any culpability by saying its a generalisation.

I doubt it, either way they were here before Europeans who declared them non-human and assumed ownership of the landmass based on that declaration.

Evidence for this?

Please quote me the sentences where the parent says they are not morally exempt.

>"Clearly?" Why? How is it clear at all? If there are no consequences or benefits for doing so (and indeed, a highly beneficial outcome by not doing so), why should they?

Quite obviously implies that corporations are justified in optimizing for their own benefit without factoring morality.

The anecdote provided about Larry Ellison has the same implication.

The parent saying an approximation of "I'm just explaining how the world works" is not only incorrect, patronizing and overly general but also implies that corporations are just a force of nature rather than a group of people who should be held responsible for the immorality of their decisions.

Demonstrating that I must behave according to the moral compass you believe those with extraordinary power are exempt from also following. Fitting.

I refer you to my first question. Why are you so willing to absolve the leaders of their responsibility to behave within a societally understood moral compass?

That same moral compass which without they would not be able to function or operate?

>Like it not, my comment is how corporations work. We've tried letting them have in-built morality, but guess what, it didn't work before, and it doesn't work now.

Except it isn't, they rely on the morality of their WORKERS to achieve their objectives. You simply believe that leaders and decision makers get a free pass on ignoring morality while anyone without sufficient power must behave morally lest they be punished. How does boot polish taste?

Why are you so willing to absolve all responsibility from decision makers?

Corporations do not act but for the behest of their controllers and decision makers, who clearly should take morality into account. Larry Ellison is not a lawnmower, he is a person who is responsible for the decisions he makes and how those decisions effect those around him. Larry Ellison CAN hate you, Larry Ellison COULD give a shit about you. He chooses not to. He deserves the negative repercussions from decisions he makes. It is simply inane to demand that every aspect of morality must be legislated before corporate owners and decision makers should include it as a factor. It is only the security afforded to them by the rest of the population permitting them to continue operating that allows them to operate as they do.

Frankly, your point is far less insightful than you think.

Only if they know it exists?

So for six months you were driving less safely, even while benefitting from your extra "brain plasticity"? Extrapolate that to a wide variety of consumers who dont have any experience piloting aircraft and what do you get?

Less safe roads for no reason other than style points. No one remotely capable of driving a car thinks doing a u-turn needs to be "easier".