No one has ever been respected by an Apple employee. Fuck. The curtain has fallen.
So, you're talking about acceptable levels of disrespect? Sure, I'll bite on the fact that asking for 100% success is unreasonable.
So, how many instances are acceptable?
I don't know
but because Apple basically told 1 shady guy to fuck off and you read about it on the internet does not suddenly mean they have ZERO respect for customers you goose
No one has ever been respected by an Apple employee. Fuck. The curtain has fallen.
So, you're talking about acceptable levels of disrespect? Sure, I'll bite on the fact that asking for 100% success is unreasonable.
So, how many instances are acceptable?
I don't know
but because Apple basically told 1 shady guy to fuck off and you read about it on the internet does not suddenly mean they have ZERO respect for customers you goose
are you unfamiliar with hyperbole?
Also, Apple generally doesn't go out of their way to show respect for customers, and then does this on top of that, so really, while I'm not ACTUALLY asserting "zero" respect, I wouldn't be surprised to learn it.
We're talking about the company that lied about what was contained in accounting regulations in order to squeeze ten bucks out of people.
No one has ever been respected by an Apple employee. Fuck. The curtain has fallen.
So, you're talking about acceptable levels of disrespect? Sure, I'll bite on the fact that asking for 100% success is unreasonable.
So, how many instances are acceptable?
I don't know
but because Apple basically told 1 shady guy to fuck off and you read about it on the internet does not suddenly mean they have ZERO respect for customers you goose
are you unfamiliar with hyperbole?
Also, Apple generally doesn't go out of their way to show respect for customers, and then does this on top of that, so really, while I'm not ACTUALLY asserting "zero" respect, I wouldn't be surprised to learn it.
We're talking about the company that lied about what was contained in accounting regulations in order to squeeze ten bucks out of people.
So what's the problem that you are getting at exactly?
Apple is disrespecting customers, but people are still buying their stuff? You want to correct this?
No one has ever been respected by an Apple employee. Fuck. The curtain has fallen.
So, you're talking about acceptable levels of disrespect? Sure, I'll bite on the fact that asking for 100% success is unreasonable.
So, how many instances are acceptable?
I don't know
but because Apple basically told 1 shady guy to fuck off and you read about it on the internet does not suddenly mean they have ZERO respect for customers you goose
are you unfamiliar with hyperbole?
Also, Apple generally doesn't go out of their way to show respect for customers, and then does this on top of that, so really, while I'm not ACTUALLY asserting "zero" respect, I wouldn't be surprised to learn it.
We're talking about the company that lied about what was contained in accounting regulations in order to squeeze ten bucks out of people.
So what's the problem that you are getting at exactly?
Apple is disrespecting customers, but people are still buying their stuff? You want to correct this?
This is a message board on the internet, not some important thinktank looking to solve real world issues.
I am pointing out that I don't like a particular policy because I view it as being very disrespectful.
Yeah uh I'm not going to respond to all that except to say "this is how things are" is not an argument against "this is how things should/should not be."
I contend that lifetime blacklists for consumer technology such as an iPad of all things are inappropriate. I don't really care what the law currently allows. That wasn't a part of my argument. But "it is what it is!" is a completely irrelevant factoid and no argument at all.
Yeah uh I'm not going to respond to all that except to say "this is how things are" is not an argument against "this is how things should/should not be."
This is true for a lot of things.
Apple can do what they like (even, in some cases, if it works against them*) and I can reserve my right to dislike it and complain.
* Most of the time, that's only true due to public backlash.
End on
I wish that someway, somehow, that I could save every one of us
Yeah uh I'm not going to respond to all that except to say "this is how things are" is not an argument against "this is how things should/should not be."
I contend that lifetime blacklists for consumer technology such as an iPad of all things are inappropriate. I don't really care what the law currently allows. That wasn't a part of my argument. But "it is what it is!" is a completely irrelevant factoid and no argument at all.
Except the way things are, is in fact the way they should be anyway.
I mean just think about what you are saying.
McDonalds doesn't want to sell you a cheeseburger? CALL 911!
Yeah uh I'm not going to respond to all that except to say "this is how things are" is not an argument against "this is how things should/should not be."
I contend that lifetime blacklists for consumer technology such as an iPad of all things are inappropriate. I don't really care what the law currently allows. That wasn't a part of my argument. But "it is what it is!" is a completely irrelevant factoid and no argument at all.
Except the way things are, is in fact the way they should be anyway.
Nope.
Also, they cannot deny someone a sale because they are black. Maybe a black person would have a hard time proving it, but that little bit you posted is fiction.
McDonalds doesn't want to sell you a cheeseburger? CALL 911!
911 is what you dial for emergencies. Not to have your consumer rights or civil liberties protected, if the law did in fact entitle you to not be blacklisted by McDonalds.
The point was to illustrate that the absurdity of this whole argument.
The government has no right to dictate who we can and cannot do business with. If you don't want to sell something to someone for whatever reason, you should be able to refuse. And if they ask you why, you could tell them or you could just keep it private, because it's literally not their business.
Also, they can deny a sale if they are black meaning they are on the blacklist, as opposed to being white, meaning they are on the whitelist.
But if you are saying they can't choose to deny selling to someone of a specific race, that's not necessarily true. They can put up some other reason up front while still keeping their true reasons private. It would be impossible to prove for sure.
The point was to illustrate that the absurdity of this whole argument.
The government has no right to dictate who we can and cannot do business with. If you don't want to sell something to someone for whatever reason, you should be able to refuse. And if they ask you why, you could tell them or you could just keep it private, because it's literally not their business.
Also, they can deny a sale if they are black meaning they are on the blacklist, as opposed to being white, meaning they are on the whitelist.
But if you are saying they can't choose to deny selling to someone of a specific race, that's not necessarily true. They can put up some other reason up front while still keeping their true reasons private. It would be impossible to prove for sure.
Actually, the government does have the right to dictate who we can and cannot do business with - a good example would be restriction of ammonia based fertilizer sales. Furthermore there are laws and court rulings about how blacklists have to operate in the US. And putting up a false reason for denying a sale because of someone's race doesn't make the act any less illegal.
The point was to illustrate that the absurdity of this whole argument.
The government has no right to dictate who we can and cannot do business with. If you don't want to sell something to someone for whatever reason, you should be able to refuse. And if they ask you why, you could tell them or you could just keep it private, because it's literally not their business.
But it is the government's business. It's society's business. You pointed out the exact example that proves this is true. Businesses are allowed to discriminate in certain ways, but not in every way. For example "no shoes, no shirt, no service"? Legal. "You're black"? Illegal. And in many states/cities there are intricate laws and statutes. For instance, I think it's illegal, here, to deny someone from making a small credit card purchase. "$5.00 limit" is not legal everywhere. So if I am a poor bastard and only have $3.52 left on my bank card and decide I want to buy a stick of gum with that, guess what? The law (at least here) says that the business is not allowed to discriminate against me in that situation.
Also, they can deny a sale if they are black meaning they are on the blacklist, as opposed to being white, meaning they are on the whitelist.
That's not what you meant. And if someone said "because you're black" the business would be roasted on a spit even if they meant "blacklist," which is just silliness. Why would you even bring this up? It damages your case with how silly it is.
But if you are saying they can't choose to deny selling to someone of a specific race, that's not necessarily true. They can put up some other reason up front while still keeping their true reasons private. It would be impossible to prove for sure.
No, it is absolutely true that they cannot legally deny sale to someone based on race. Or age, sex, religious creed, sexual preference, or anything else of that nature.
Are businesses able to lie? Uh, sure. Anyone can lie. So what? That has no bearing on this conversation.
We're not talking about what businesses can get away with illegally. We're talking about whether or not businesses are completely legally unfettered in being able to discriminate. And the answer is no, they are not. Whether or not businesses can effectively bamboozle the government and the public is unimportant because we're talking about what the LAW is and what the LAW should be.
The point was to illustrate that the absurdity of this whole argument.
The government has no right to dictate who we can and cannot do business with. If you don't want to sell something to someone for whatever reason, you should be able to refuse. And if they ask you why, you could tell them or you could just keep it private, because it's literally not their business.
Also, they can deny a sale if they are black meaning they are on the blacklist, as opposed to being white, meaning they are on the whitelist.
But if you are saying they can't choose to deny selling to someone of a specific race, that's not necessarily true. They can put up some other reason up front while still keeping their true reasons private. It would be impossible to prove for sure.
Actually, the government does have the right to dictate who we can and cannot do business with - a good example would be restriction of ammonia based fertilizer sales. Furthermore there are laws and court rulings about how blacklists have to operate in the US. And putting up a false reason for denying a sale because of someone's race doesn't make the act any less illegal.
The government has no right to dictate who we can and cannot do business with at the retail level.
But if you are saying they can't choose to deny selling to someone of a specific race, that's not necessarily true. They can put up some other reason up front while still keeping their true reasons private. It would be impossible to prove for sure.
No, it is absolutely true that they cannot legally deny sale to someone based on race. Or age, sex, religious creed, sexual preference, or anything else of that nature.
I didn't say they can legally do it, I'm just saying if that's the reason why they wanted to do it they can easily find a way to do it while still being within the law, even though the true reason is illegal.
They had no proof of him reselling, so there was nothing at all wrong that he was doing, as per their posted rules.
Why on Earth would someone buy two iPads everyday for X number of days, if they aren't reselling?
If I were Apple I'd err on the side of caution too and ban him.
I know that people tend to treat suppliers as though they are in charge of all transactions, but that is not true. It is a transaction involving equal partners. What Apple is doing by refusing to inform consumers of their policy is showing a GREAT disrespect, and as a consumer, I take issue with that.
But if you are saying they can't choose to deny selling to someone of a specific race, that's not necessarily true. They can put up some other reason up front while still keeping their true reasons private. It would be impossible to prove for sure.
No, it is absolutely true that they cannot legally deny sale to someone based on race. Or age, sex, religious creed, sexual preference, or anything else of that nature.
I didn't say they can legally do it, I'm just saying if that's the reason why they wanted to do it they can easily find a way to do it while still being within the law, even though the true reason is illegal.
But if the reason is that the customer is black then it is not within the law, not ever. In fact, they would be breaking two laws in that case.
"Did you restrict sale to Soandso because he's black?"
"No, your honor."
That's perjury, on top of illegal discrimination.
In other words, it's not "legal" to cover your illegal motives by exploiting legal vagueness.
Again, could they get away with it? Probably. Is it legal? No. Do you even understand what "legal" means? It's not "whatever I can get away with."
edit: I won't deny that it would be very hard to prove racial discrimination in most cases (and that a business would be utterly stupid to discriminate on those grounds anyway), but if you are going to offer a hypothetical situation where the business IS racially motivated in their blacklisting, then the only answer is that their actions are illegal. Whether they are likely to actually be prosecuted for it has no bearing on whether or not their actions are illegal in your hypothetical situation.
But if you are saying they can't choose to deny selling to someone of a specific race, that's not necessarily true. They can put up some other reason up front while still keeping their true reasons private. It would be impossible to prove for sure.
No, it is absolutely true that they cannot legally deny sale to someone based on race. Or age, sex, religious creed, sexual preference, or anything else of that nature.
I didn't say they can legally do it, I'm just saying if that's the reason why they wanted to do it they can easily find a way to do it while still being within the law, even though the true reason is illegal.
But if the reason is that the customer is black then it is not within the law, not ever. In fact, they would be breaking two laws in that case.
"Did you restrict sale to Soandso because he's black?"
"No, your honor."
That's perjury, on top of illegal discrimination.
In other words, it's not "legal" to cover your illegal motives by exploiting legal vagueness.
Again, could they get away with it? Probably. Is it legal? No. Do you even understand what "legal" means? It's not "whatever I can get away with."
Of course I know what legal means.
That's not what I was arguing.
I'm saying if you wanted to deny a sale to someone, presumably because of race, and you put up some BS reason as an excuse, then you can probably get away with it. Because in court, it's not about what you know, IT'S ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN FUCKING PROVE
But if you are saying they can't choose to deny selling to someone of a specific race, that's not necessarily true. They can put up some other reason up front while still keeping their true reasons private. It would be impossible to prove for sure.
No, it is absolutely true that they cannot legally deny sale to someone based on race. Or age, sex, religious creed, sexual preference, or anything else of that nature.
I didn't say they can legally do it, I'm just saying if that's the reason why they wanted to do it they can easily find a way to do it while still being within the law, even though the true reason is illegal.
But if the reason is that the customer is black then it is not within the law, not ever. In fact, they would be breaking two laws in that case.
"Did you restrict sale to Soandso because he's black?"
"No, your honor."
That's perjury, on top of illegal discrimination.
In other words, it's not "legal" to cover your illegal motives by exploiting legal vagueness.
Again, could they get away with it? Probably. Is it legal? No. Do you even understand what "legal" means? It's not "whatever I can get away with."
Of course I know what legal means.
That's not what I was arguing.
I'm saying if you wanted to deny a sale to someone, presumably because of race, and you put up some BS reason as an excuse, then you can probably get away with it. Because in court, it's not about what you know, IT'S ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN FUCKING PROVE
What you should do that nobody has done is instead of complaining on a forum or writing a petition or establishing a boycott, is donate money to an advertising campaign detailing whatever you think apple's bad business practices are. I'm sure the publicity subsidiary of microsoft would love to hear from you.
That is, if you think it is that big of a deal.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Why haven't consumers made a concerted initiative for or against anything anyway? You say you vote with your money, right? Well, why do corporations have to do extensive market research just to collect the ballot? Why is the single most motivating factor for a purchase still word of mouth? Why don't I see any real consumers on TV or really anywere else? Why does my water taste like paint when I drink it out of this steel cup eugh
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
What I was originally responding to was whether the government is legally allowed to interfere with a business's freedom to deny sales to people.
And the person claiming that the government is not allowed to interfere brought up "even if the person is black" as an example.
This is not a freedom a business has. It is illegal for a business to deny sale to someone because of their race. Period. It's not arguable.
So I really don't care to debate whether or not "legal" means "on the books" or "provable in court." If you want to debate the semantics of legality, you can either talk to yourself or create a brand new thread for all I care, but it's not why I came to the thread. It was to dispute an erroneous comment gearn made, and I believe I have done so adequately.
I'm sure the publicity subsidiary of microsoft would love to hear from you.
I'm less than certain. MS could run negative ads, and probably has at some point done so, but it's rare for good reason; by firing the opening salvo, they open themselves up to someone else's negative ads - not even necessarily Apple's - and they are a much bigger, juicier target, particularly when it comes to pointing out evil behavior with the 30 seconds of exposition allotted for a TV spot.
I'm sure the publicity subsidiary of microsoft would love to hear from you.
I'm less than certain. MS could run negative ads, and probably has at some point done so, but it's rare for good reason; by firing the opening salvo, they open themselves up to someone else's negative ads - not even necessarily Apple's - and they are a much bigger, juicier target, particularly when it comes to pointing out evil behavior with the 30 seconds of exposition allotted for a TV spot.
Personally I would love for that to happen; it would make commercial breaks in between my shows less boring. It's definitely better than the stand by "feel good" commercials that provide no pertinent information whatsoever about the product, opting instead to associate it as best they can to positive stimuli.
I mean, after watching thousands of car commercials, I still have no idea how and why they can all afford to be simultaneously hundreds of dollars cheaper than each other. Maybe my third grade math teacher wasn't telling me something.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm sure the publicity subsidiary of microsoft would love to hear from you.
I'm less than certain. MS could run negative ads, and probably has at some point done so, but it's rare for good reason; by firing the opening salvo, they open themselves up to someone else's negative ads - not even necessarily Apple's - and they are a much bigger, juicier target, particularly when it comes to pointing out evil behavior with the 30 seconds of exposition allotted for a TV spot.
Personally I would love for that to happen; it would make commercial breaks in between my shows less boring. It's definitely better than the stand by "feel good" commercials that provide no pertinent information whatsoever about the product, opting instead to associate it as best they can to positive stimuli.
I mean, after watching thousands of car commercials, I still have no idea how and why they can all afford to be simultaneously hundreds of dollars cheaper than each other. Maybe my third grade math teacher wasn't telling me something.
God, yes. If I don't get to see the collapse of the United States into a diverse community of warring franchises a la Snow Crash, then at least some really antagonistic TV spots would be some consolation. Honestly, it's gotten to the point where I'm pleasantly surprised if a video advertisement actually refers to specific material qualities of the product it's pushing instead of simply placing that product amidst a bunch of attractive young people with no visible means of support and expecting their audience to be too horny to engage their critical faculties. That's actually probably another reason why we don't get to have awesomely brutal anti-advertisements all the time; it's all about subtlety and positive association in advertising these days, and an unsubtle negative ad would cut directly against the received wisdom.
What I was originally responding to was whether the government is legally allowed to interfere with a business's freedom to deny sales to people.
And that's what you should be arguing.
If I made a shitty hypothetical claim that maybe a business would deny selling something to someone because of race, that is another matter.
Let's start over fresh. Do you or do you not believe that the government should be allowed to dictate who a business can and cannot make legal domestic retail sales to?
What I was originally responding to was whether the government is legally allowed to interfere with a business's freedom to deny sales to people.
And that's what you should be arguing.
If I made a shitty hypothetical claim that maybe a business would deny selling something to someone because of race, that is another matter.
Let's start over fresh. Do you or do you not believe that the government should be allowed to dictate who a business can and cannot make legal domestic retail sales to?
To an extent, yes.
Didn't I say that before you derailed the argument with useless (and incorrect) hypotheticals?
I'm sure the publicity subsidiary of microsoft would love to hear from you.
I'm less than certain. MS could run negative ads, and probably has at some point done so, but it's rare for good reason; by firing the opening salvo, they open themselves up to someone else's negative ads - not even necessarily Apple's - and they are a much bigger, juicier target, particularly when it comes to pointing out evil behavior with the 30 seconds of exposition allotted for a TV spot.
Personally I would love for that to happen; it would make commercial breaks in between my shows less boring. It's definitely better than the stand by "feel good" commercials that provide no pertinent information whatsoever about the product, opting instead to associate it as best they can to positive stimuli.
I mean, after watching thousands of car commercials, I still have no idea how and why they can all afford to be simultaneously hundreds of dollars cheaper than each other. Maybe my third grade math teacher wasn't telling me something.
God, yes. If I don't get to see the collapse of the United States into a diverse community of warring franchises a la Snow Crash, then at least some really antagonistic TV spots would be some consolation. Honestly, it's gotten to the point where I'm pleasantly surprised if a video advertisement actually refers to specific material qualities of the product it's pushing instead of simply placing that product amidst a bunch of attractive young people with no visible means of support and expecting their audience to be too horny to engage their critical faculties. That's actually probably another reason why we don't get to have awesomely brutal anti-advertisements all the time; it's all about subtlety and positive association in advertising these days, and an unsubtle negative ad would cut directly against the received wisdom.
This isn't how ads work.
People aren't going to remember even half the shit you say in an ad the moment you start saying too much.
An ad is supposed to be a hook for a person to do further research. The less you say, the more they are interested, but say too little, and they won't know what the fuck you are talking about. It's not as easy as just listing bullet points.
What I was originally responding to was whether the government is legally allowed to interfere with a business's freedom to deny sales to people.
And that's what you should be arguing.
If I made a shitty hypothetical claim that maybe a business would deny selling something to someone because of race, that is another matter.
Let's start over fresh. Do you or do you not believe that the government should be allowed to dictate who a business can and cannot make legal domestic retail sales to?
To an extent, yes.
Didn't I say that before you derailed the argument with useless (and incorrect) hypotheticals?
What I was originally responding to was whether the government is legally allowed to interfere with a business's freedom to deny sales to people.
And that's what you should be arguing.
If I made a shitty hypothetical claim that maybe a business would deny selling something to someone because of race, that is another matter.
Let's start over fresh. Do you or do you not believe that the government should be allowed to dictate who a business can and cannot make legal domestic retail sales to?
To an extent, yes.
Didn't I say that before you derailed the argument with useless (and incorrect) hypotheticals?
Define your extent. Do not hide your position.
I haven't mapped out the "extent" I think would be appropriate, but I've already stated that a lifetime iPad blacklist toward some individual is inapproprite. It's also inappropriate for McDonald's to ban a particular person from buying cheeseburgers.
See, I've been brazenly answering your questions all along. Which is the opposite of hiding my position. What do you expect me to do, sit here and contrive a whole bunch of hypotheticals to appease your curiosity? I'm not a legislator. My position is that lifetime blacklisting has to be reasonable, and that the example provided in this thread is not what I would consider reasonable.
But since you aren't interested in honest or even intelligent debate, I think this is where you and I part ways.
I'm sure the publicity subsidiary of microsoft would love to hear from you.
I'm less than certain. MS could run negative ads, and probably has at some point done so, but it's rare for good reason; by firing the opening salvo, they open themselves up to someone else's negative ads - not even necessarily Apple's - and they are a much bigger, juicier target, particularly when it comes to pointing out evil behavior with the 30 seconds of exposition allotted for a TV spot.
Personally I would love for that to happen; it would make commercial breaks in between my shows less boring. It's definitely better than the stand by "feel good" commercials that provide no pertinent information whatsoever about the product, opting instead to associate it as best they can to positive stimuli.
I mean, after watching thousands of car commercials, I still have no idea how and why they can all afford to be simultaneously hundreds of dollars cheaper than each other. Maybe my third grade math teacher wasn't telling me something.
God, yes. If I don't get to see the collapse of the United States into a diverse community of warring franchises a la Snow Crash, then at least some really antagonistic TV spots would be some consolation. Honestly, it's gotten to the point where I'm pleasantly surprised if a video advertisement actually refers to specific material qualities of the product it's pushing instead of simply placing that product amidst a bunch of attractive young people with no visible means of support and expecting their audience to be too horny to engage their critical faculties. That's actually probably another reason why we don't get to have awesomely brutal anti-advertisements all the time; it's all about subtlety and positive association in advertising these days, and an unsubtle negative ad would cut directly against the received wisdom.
This isn't how ads work.
People aren't going to remember even half the shit you say in an ad the moment you start saying too much.
An ad is supposed to be a hook for a person to do further research. The less you say, the more they are interested, but say too little, and they won't know what the fuck you are talking about. It's not as easy as just listing bullet points.
Ads prey on the imperfections in the consumer's method of making purchasing decisions.
Successful advertising rarely depends on the quality of the actual product.
More and better ads will generate more sales and influence the market more.
Thus, more advertising capital is the most concrete way of defeating an opposing product, regardless of the value of your own.
Thus, if consumers really wanted to affect the market force, they would sink money into advertising rather than just casting single purchase votes.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
What I was originally responding to was whether the government is legally allowed to interfere with a business's freedom to deny sales to people.
And that's what you should be arguing.
If I made a shitty hypothetical claim that maybe a business would deny selling something to someone because of race, that is another matter.
Let's start over fresh. Do you or do you not believe that the government should be allowed to dictate who a business can and cannot make legal domestic retail sales to?
To an extent, yes.
Didn't I say that before you derailed the argument with useless (and incorrect) hypotheticals?
Define your extent. Do not hide your position.
I haven't mapped out the "extent" I think would be appropriate, but I've already stated that a lifetime iPad blacklist toward some individual is inapproprite. It's also inappropriate for McDonald's to ban a particular person from buying cheeseburgers.
See, I've been brazenly answering your questions all along. Which is the opposite of hiding my position. What do you expect me to do, sit here and contrive a whole bunch of hypotheticals to appease your curiosity? I'm not a legislator. My position is that lifetime blacklisting has to be reasonable, and that the example provided in this thread is not what I would consider reasonable.
But since you aren't interested in honest or even intelligent debate, I think this is where you and I part ways.
Your position is still hidden. You've basically given yourself a blank check to modify your position on the fly if it becomes convenient in the future, without having to admit you were wrong.
Why is a lifetime ban toward an individual buying stuff from your own private store inappropriate?
I haven't mapped out the "extent" I think would be appropriate, but I've already stated that a lifetime iPad blacklist toward some individual is inapproprite. It's also inappropriate for McDonald's to ban a particular person from buying cheeseburgers.
See, I've been brazenly answering your questions all along. Which is the opposite of hiding my position. What do you expect me to do, sit here and contrive a whole bunch of hypotheticals to appease your curiosity? I'm not a legislator. My position is that lifetime blacklisting has to be reasonable, and that the example provided in this thread is not what I would consider reasonable.
o_O
Your "position" is pretty strange.
In the first paragraph, you said that lifetime iPad or McDonald's blacklists are inappropriate. You haven't explained why.
In the second paragraph, you said lifetime blacklisting has to be reasonable.
What I was originally responding to was whether the government is legally allowed to interfere with a business's freedom to deny sales to people.
And that's what you should be arguing.
If I made a shitty hypothetical claim that maybe a business would deny selling something to someone because of race, that is another matter.
Let's start over fresh. Do you or do you not believe that the government should be allowed to dictate who a business can and cannot make legal domestic retail sales to?
To an extent, yes.
Didn't I say that before you derailed the argument with useless (and incorrect) hypotheticals?
Define your extent. Do not hide your position.
I haven't mapped out the "extent" I think would be appropriate, but I've already stated that a lifetime iPad blacklist toward some individual is inapproprite. It's also inappropriate for McDonald's to ban a particular person from buying cheeseburgers.
See, I've been brazenly answering your questions all along. Which is the opposite of hiding my position. What do you expect me to do, sit here and contrive a whole bunch of hypotheticals to appease your curiosity? I'm not a legislator. My position is that lifetime blacklisting has to be reasonable, and that the example provided in this thread is not what I would consider reasonable.
But since you aren't interested in honest or even intelligent debate, I think this is where you and I part ways.
Your position is still hidden. You've basically given yourself a blank check to modify your position on the fly if it becomes convenient in the future, without having to admit you were wrong.
Why is a lifetime ban toward an individual buying stuff from your own private store inappropriate?
Because discrimination itself - for any reason - is against the nature of commerce? Because this "free" market crap is as much about buying as it is selling?
People like to talk up the free market as though sellers should have unrestricted freedom, but they ignore the fact that consumers are just as important as the businesses and that there is a tug of war between the seller's freedom and the buyer's freedom. There is a very obvious conflict. That what what I stated in my very first post, the one you grew into a giant quote tree with Evander.
You seem to believe that all the freedom should belong to the seller and I do not agree. I do not think that is an even remotely reasonable, responsible, or helpful policy. And, as your hypotheticals drew out, it is NOT how our economy currently operates, despite whatever you seem to believe. Businesses are not afforded unlimited freedom in America's current market.
So my final answer is that all the power should not rest with businesses. That is what I define as "unreasonable." I don't have a specific, definite answer of what would be a "reasonable" line to draw in the sand because I am not an economist, not a lawyer, not a legislator, and not a politician. All I know, in my humble layman perspective, is that the philosophy you were touting earlier - that businesses should be able to do whatever the fuck they want - is unreasonable. I don't have to explain or define any further than that, because that is my entire argument: that unlimited power should never be afforded to businesses. And as a layman consumer - which an overwhelming majority of the American populace is comprised of - I don't really think a hard analysis is even necessary.
Legislators can squabble over the concept of "reasonable." All I can say is that the seller having all or even the lion's share of freedom in this conflict between business and consumer is unreasonable, for all the reasons I've stated.
Posts
So, how many instances are acceptable?
I don't know
but because Apple basically told 1 shady guy to fuck off and you read about it on the internet does not suddenly mean they have ZERO respect for customers you goose
And yet you have the gall to bitch about straw men.
Also, it's interesting how now they're a bumbling company hemorrhaging customers with their poor practices.
are you unfamiliar with hyperbole?
Also, Apple generally doesn't go out of their way to show respect for customers, and then does this on top of that, so really, while I'm not ACTUALLY asserting "zero" respect, I wouldn't be surprised to learn it.
We're talking about the company that lied about what was contained in accounting regulations in order to squeeze ten bucks out of people.
So what's the problem that you are getting at exactly?
Apple is disrespecting customers, but people are still buying their stuff? You want to correct this?
This is a message board on the internet, not some important thinktank looking to solve real world issues.
I am pointing out that I don't like a particular policy because I view it as being very disrespectful.
I contend that lifetime blacklists for consumer technology such as an iPad of all things are inappropriate. I don't really care what the law currently allows. That wasn't a part of my argument. But "it is what it is!" is a completely irrelevant factoid and no argument at all.
This is true for a lot of things.
Apple can do what they like (even, in some cases, if it works against them*) and I can reserve my right to dislike it and complain.
* Most of the time, that's only true due to public backlash.
Except the way things are, is in fact the way they should be anyway.
I mean just think about what you are saying.
McDonalds doesn't want to sell you a cheeseburger? CALL 911!
Nope.
Also, they cannot deny someone a sale because they are black. Maybe a black person would have a hard time proving it, but that little bit you posted is fiction.
I have.
911 is what you dial for emergencies. Not to have your consumer rights or civil liberties protected, if the law did in fact entitle you to not be blacklisted by McDonalds.
The government has no right to dictate who we can and cannot do business with. If you don't want to sell something to someone for whatever reason, you should be able to refuse. And if they ask you why, you could tell them or you could just keep it private, because it's literally not their business.
Also, they can deny a sale if they are black meaning they are on the blacklist, as opposed to being white, meaning they are on the whitelist.
But if you are saying they can't choose to deny selling to someone of a specific race, that's not necessarily true. They can put up some other reason up front while still keeping their true reasons private. It would be impossible to prove for sure.
Actually, the government does have the right to dictate who we can and cannot do business with - a good example would be restriction of ammonia based fertilizer sales. Furthermore there are laws and court rulings about how blacklists have to operate in the US. And putting up a false reason for denying a sale because of someone's race doesn't make the act any less illegal.
But it is the government's business. It's society's business. You pointed out the exact example that proves this is true. Businesses are allowed to discriminate in certain ways, but not in every way. For example "no shoes, no shirt, no service"? Legal. "You're black"? Illegal. And in many states/cities there are intricate laws and statutes. For instance, I think it's illegal, here, to deny someone from making a small credit card purchase. "$5.00 limit" is not legal everywhere. So if I am a poor bastard and only have $3.52 left on my bank card and decide I want to buy a stick of gum with that, guess what? The law (at least here) says that the business is not allowed to discriminate against me in that situation.
That's not what you meant. And if someone said "because you're black" the business would be roasted on a spit even if they meant "blacklist," which is just silliness. Why would you even bring this up? It damages your case with how silly it is.
No, it is absolutely true that they cannot legally deny sale to someone based on race. Or age, sex, religious creed, sexual preference, or anything else of that nature.
Are businesses able to lie? Uh, sure. Anyone can lie. So what? That has no bearing on this conversation.
We're not talking about what businesses can get away with illegally. We're talking about whether or not businesses are completely legally unfettered in being able to discriminate. And the answer is no, they are not. Whether or not businesses can effectively bamboozle the government and the public is unimportant because we're talking about what the LAW is and what the LAW should be.
The government has no right to dictate who we can and cannot do business with at the retail level.
I didn't say they can legally do it, I'm just saying if that's the reason why they wanted to do it they can easily find a way to do it while still being within the law, even though the true reason is illegal.
Why on Earth would someone buy two iPads everyday for X number of days, if they aren't reselling?
If I were Apple I'd err on the side of caution too and ban him.
Great. So don't buy from Apple. Problem solved.
But if the reason is that the customer is black then it is not within the law, not ever. In fact, they would be breaking two laws in that case.
"Did you restrict sale to Soandso because he's black?"
"No, your honor."
That's perjury, on top of illegal discrimination.
In other words, it's not "legal" to cover your illegal motives by exploiting legal vagueness.
Again, could they get away with it? Probably. Is it legal? No. Do you even understand what "legal" means? It's not "whatever I can get away with."
edit: I won't deny that it would be very hard to prove racial discrimination in most cases (and that a business would be utterly stupid to discriminate on those grounds anyway), but if you are going to offer a hypothetical situation where the business IS racially motivated in their blacklisting, then the only answer is that their actions are illegal. Whether they are likely to actually be prosecuted for it has no bearing on whether or not their actions are illegal in your hypothetical situation.
Of course I know what legal means.
That's not what I was arguing.
I'm saying if you wanted to deny a sale to someone, presumably because of race, and you put up some BS reason as an excuse, then you can probably get away with it. Because in court, it's not about what you know, IT'S ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN FUCKING PROVE
Don't care. That's not what we're debating.
Don't care. That's not what we're debating.
That is, if you think it is that big of a deal.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That's a shame.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Well, I don't.
What I was originally responding to was whether the government is legally allowed to interfere with a business's freedom to deny sales to people.
And the person claiming that the government is not allowed to interfere brought up "even if the person is black" as an example.
This is not a freedom a business has. It is illegal for a business to deny sale to someone because of their race. Period. It's not arguable.
So I really don't care to debate whether or not "legal" means "on the books" or "provable in court." If you want to debate the semantics of legality, you can either talk to yourself or create a brand new thread for all I care, but it's not why I came to the thread. It was to dispute an erroneous comment gearn made, and I believe I have done so adequately.
I'm less than certain. MS could run negative ads, and probably has at some point done so, but it's rare for good reason; by firing the opening salvo, they open themselves up to someone else's negative ads - not even necessarily Apple's - and they are a much bigger, juicier target, particularly when it comes to pointing out evil behavior with the 30 seconds of exposition allotted for a TV spot.
Personally I would love for that to happen; it would make commercial breaks in between my shows less boring. It's definitely better than the stand by "feel good" commercials that provide no pertinent information whatsoever about the product, opting instead to associate it as best they can to positive stimuli.
I mean, after watching thousands of car commercials, I still have no idea how and why they can all afford to be simultaneously hundreds of dollars cheaper than each other. Maybe my third grade math teacher wasn't telling me something.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
God, yes. If I don't get to see the collapse of the United States into a diverse community of warring franchises a la Snow Crash, then at least some really antagonistic TV spots would be some consolation. Honestly, it's gotten to the point where I'm pleasantly surprised if a video advertisement actually refers to specific material qualities of the product it's pushing instead of simply placing that product amidst a bunch of attractive young people with no visible means of support and expecting their audience to be too horny to engage their critical faculties. That's actually probably another reason why we don't get to have awesomely brutal anti-advertisements all the time; it's all about subtlety and positive association in advertising these days, and an unsubtle negative ad would cut directly against the received wisdom.
And that's what you should be arguing.
If I made a shitty hypothetical claim that maybe a business would deny selling something to someone because of race, that is another matter.
Let's start over fresh. Do you or do you not believe that the government should be allowed to dictate who a business can and cannot make legal domestic retail sales to?
To an extent, yes.
Didn't I say that before you derailed the argument with useless (and incorrect) hypotheticals?
This isn't how ads work.
People aren't going to remember even half the shit you say in an ad the moment you start saying too much.
An ad is supposed to be a hook for a person to do further research. The less you say, the more they are interested, but say too little, and they won't know what the fuck you are talking about. It's not as easy as just listing bullet points.
Define your extent. Do not hide your position.
I haven't mapped out the "extent" I think would be appropriate, but I've already stated that a lifetime iPad blacklist toward some individual is inapproprite. It's also inappropriate for McDonald's to ban a particular person from buying cheeseburgers.
See, I've been brazenly answering your questions all along. Which is the opposite of hiding my position. What do you expect me to do, sit here and contrive a whole bunch of hypotheticals to appease your curiosity? I'm not a legislator. My position is that lifetime blacklisting has to be reasonable, and that the example provided in this thread is not what I would consider reasonable.
But since you aren't interested in honest or even intelligent debate, I think this is where you and I part ways.
Ads prey on the imperfections in the consumer's method of making purchasing decisions.
Successful advertising rarely depends on the quality of the actual product.
More and better ads will generate more sales and influence the market more.
Thus, more advertising capital is the most concrete way of defeating an opposing product, regardless of the value of your own.
Thus, if consumers really wanted to affect the market force, they would sink money into advertising rather than just casting single purchase votes.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Your position is still hidden. You've basically given yourself a blank check to modify your position on the fly if it becomes convenient in the future, without having to admit you were wrong.
Why is a lifetime ban toward an individual buying stuff from your own private store inappropriate?
o_O
Your "position" is pretty strange.
In the first paragraph, you said that lifetime iPad or McDonald's blacklists are inappropriate. You haven't explained why.
In the second paragraph, you said lifetime blacklisting has to be reasonable.
Reasonable to who?
Does it become appropriate if it is reasonable?
Because discrimination itself - for any reason - is against the nature of commerce? Because this "free" market crap is as much about buying as it is selling?
People like to talk up the free market as though sellers should have unrestricted freedom, but they ignore the fact that consumers are just as important as the businesses and that there is a tug of war between the seller's freedom and the buyer's freedom. There is a very obvious conflict. That what what I stated in my very first post, the one you grew into a giant quote tree with Evander.
You seem to believe that all the freedom should belong to the seller and I do not agree. I do not think that is an even remotely reasonable, responsible, or helpful policy. And, as your hypotheticals drew out, it is NOT how our economy currently operates, despite whatever you seem to believe. Businesses are not afforded unlimited freedom in America's current market.
So my final answer is that all the power should not rest with businesses. That is what I define as "unreasonable." I don't have a specific, definite answer of what would be a "reasonable" line to draw in the sand because I am not an economist, not a lawyer, not a legislator, and not a politician. All I know, in my humble layman perspective, is that the philosophy you were touting earlier - that businesses should be able to do whatever the fuck they want - is unreasonable. I don't have to explain or define any further than that, because that is my entire argument: that unlimited power should never be afforded to businesses. And as a layman consumer - which an overwhelming majority of the American populace is comprised of - I don't really think a hard analysis is even necessary.
Legislators can squabble over the concept of "reasonable." All I can say is that the seller having all or even the lion's share of freedom in this conflict between business and consumer is unreasonable, for all the reasons I've stated.
that's a silly assertion. There are plenty of businesses with limited customer bases that are extremely powerful.