Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Which is why activist investors don't ask to be CEO. You do not want to be in the most public facing position of a company and be an ideologue.

And I didn't say he'd implement anti-gay mozilla. I'm having a hard time understanding where this line of thought comes from.

He was in the most public position in the company. He advocates his personal beliefs after being CEO, does not temper own opinions and does not explain himself like a normal CEO should.

That is an example of a person who should not be CEO, no matter political beliefs. Communication is a key skill for this position.

Sometimes, I know this might be strange, corporations and entities within do things simply for PR purposes. He was bad for image, bad for communication, and bad for management. Not to mention I can't remember the last corporation where a large amount of said corporation itself is directly against a CEO being in the position and where the CEO stays for an extended period of time.

[GlyphGryph]

That wasn't an analogy, I was demonstrating why GlyphGryph's explicitly stated position is unsupportable.

No, you've merely demonstrated that we have very different standards, morals, and views of the world. Which we determined, like... a dozen pages ago, and since then you keep thinking you've demonstrated additional things and failed miserably at doing so.

Regardless, I think I'm done with this thread - what's been said has been said, and I've learned at least that I am not, in fact, alone on this issue. That the other "side" can't even understand the arguments being made indicates, to me, the divergence as at a pretty fundamental, and so nothing productive is likely to come from this.

I leave with a final comment, if you're going to support things like, can we at least agree that doing so is a bad idea if it hurts the cause we're actually trying to advance? (That being widespread acceptance of homosexuality) We could argue day and night about whether it has, but can we at least agree on the fundamental idea that if it hurts that goal, these attempts at ideological purges are a bad thing?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

We could implement some sort of a government policy that prevents people from resigning from positions unless you determine it's a properly moral reason. 

[GlyphGryph]

We could implement some sort of a government policy that prevents people from resigning from positions unless you determine it's a properly moral reason. 

I have literally no fucking clue what you are trying to say here, other than it being the same sort of shit you've been spewing for pages that manages to not be relevant to anything I've ever said.

Which, admittedly, isn't exactly new for your arguments, and the whole "broken record of stupidity" is getting really old. At least Nenjin and Leafsnail disagree with me. You just don't seem to have any clue what I'm saying, so intent you are on beating that worthless strawman you've made.

Since you still don't seem to get it,
I never fucking said the company did anything wrong by asking him to resign, or that he did anything wrong by resigning. This thread was never about that, and you're the only one who's even brought it up! No one but you cares about your stupid strawman!

[nenjin]

Yes Glyph, if we don't agree with you, clearly we don't even understand the issue.

But thanks for the passive-aggressive parting shot none the less.

[Graknorke]

Yes Glyph, if we don't agree with you, clearly we don't even understand the issue.

But thanks for the passive-aggressive parting shot none the less.

At least Nenjin and Leafsnail disagree with me. You just don't seem to have any clue what I'm saying

It wasn't directed at you.

[nenjin]

Yes Glyph, if we don't agree with you, clearly we don't even understand the issue.

But thanks for the passive-aggressive parting shot none the less.

At least Nenjin and Leafsnail disagree with me. You just don't seem to have any clue what I'm saying

It wasn't directed at you.

I know. I just hate that's how these debates end. It's also hard to parse apart when it's sort of generically directed at "the opposition."

[GlyphGryph]

... you might want to reread that post, since the thing you are are clearly insulted about is the exact opposite of the thing I said. Either you didn't understand me or you're intentionally being an asshole. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming the first, here.

Mict, meanwhile, has yet to comment on what the thread is actually about, instead limiting himself to launching repeated snide irrelevant comments against a
position that no one here has supported. Are you honestly going to defend that?

Edit: Ninja-ed

And since you now claim you did know, then you were in fact just being an asshole and intentionally misconstruing my position. Awesome, great to know.

[nenjin]

Nah. It's more the attitude than the position. I get plenty steamed in these debates, but I think the "FU, I'm out because you don't understand me" is my least favorite option for exiting.

[GlyphGryph]

Nah. It's more the attitude than the position. I get plenty steamed in these debates, but I think the "FU, I'm out because you don't understand me" is my least favorite option for exiting.

If this is a common problem for you, maybe you should try to spend a little bit more time trying to understand the other person's position, and less time trying to beat into them how wrong they are?

But seriously, I'm leaving the thread because we aren't making any progress. There's a fundamental disagreement to the point where our arguments are just sliding past each other. Leaf obviously doesn't understand where my argument is coming from, or he wouldn't have thought his response was the clear slam dunk he believed it would be. But the lack of understanding is mutual - I am having a hard time grasping the basis for either you or his positions as well, and my attempts to do so have been met with derision and explained as being off the mark. It's not that you don't understand the issue, it's that you don't understand why I might think differently from you - we're clearly arguing from incompatible contexts, because I'm having difficulty understanding where he's coming from as well.

It's an inherently unproductive conversation, at least the way it's gone and seems likely to continue in the future.

Mict's problem... well, that's not Mict's problem. Mict's problem appears to be intentional attempts to ruin any effort at real conversation, which is a very different beast.