A corporation and a worker are two different entities in almost every way imaginable from their size to the amount of impact they have on the country. It's not absurd to apply different sets of logic to each of them. While you can apply the same logic to them (as I have done in the past), it's not unreasonable to argue that they deserve two different sets of logic as they are so incredibly different.So using that same reasoning, applying or own personal myriad of ethics to whoever we choose, why can we not pick workers, and require their duty to be significantly more than they currently do? Why is that any less valid?
For some reason the absurd arguments people lay on the business community, and the wealthy, and high income earners (who may not actually be wealthy) are passed of as having some merit. But when applied equally to other things, suddenly they are absurd and nonsense? Indeed.
Thank you, but I must say that while I disagree with those who say corporations have a duty I can understand their sentiment. I am personally not fond of the concept of "duty" in general as it applies to anything or anyone. However, I do understand the frustration people have with those who do not contribute what they perceive as "enough" to society. Some people get frustrated with corporations who seem to take more than they give and others get frustrated with welfare recipients who also seem to take more than they give. I don't think it's absurd for either group to claim that either is not doing their duty as a member of this society. I think both claims are misguided though.I would hope so, considering it's reduction to absurdity.
You always appear to be quite moderate and reasonable, that cannot be applied to everyone else unfortunately, in DP and most certainly in the wider public.
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields
Women (Nasty or otherwise) are going to be the reason that Donald Trump is NEVER President!