• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it ever ok to profit from tragedies

Is it ok to profit from a tragedy?

  • Total voters
    17
Amelia said:
Someone is going to profit off of tragedy. They are under no moral obligation to give away their profits simply because those profits came at someone else's expense.

Gloating about how much of a killing you make off of others' suffering? Gleefully welcoming the suffering of others because you expect to profit? That's a different matter. And a different question from that in the poll.
Click to expand...

One notable republican on this board started a thread literally bragging that the nra made bank after the Parkland massacre.
 
OlNate said:
No... The only decent way to "profit" from tragedy is to learn from it in such a way as to prevent it happening again. Everything else is shameful.
Click to expand...

Beg to differ...

Construction companies profit after natural disasters. As long as they are charging fair prices they are not evil.

Same for....

Disaster Recovery companies.

Mold Remediation companies.

Flood Remediation companies.

Hospitals.

Etc.....
 
Fledermaus said:
Beg to differ...

Construction companies profit after natural disasters. As long as they are charging fair prices they are not evil.

Same for....

Disaster Recovery companies.

Mold Remediation companies.

Flood Remediation companies.

Hospitals.

Etc.....
Click to expand...


Again, need to define tragedy....but I admit that not doing so in my original post was sloppy.
 
OlNate said:
I am betting that my love ones are going to die? That's a pretty safe bet, there, bud...lol...
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, people should buy life insurance when they need it, as in when they're young and have a family that depends on them. It's a tragedy when the unexpected happens, and dead young parents/spouses are normally considered a tragedy. The inference in my response was during the period the policy is in force, the policyholder is making a bet the insured is going to die. If that were a certainty, the insurer would not agree to take the bet.

OlNate said:
And given that all monies coming from any life insurance policies in my family will go to my only child, there is no goal of profit there.
Click to expand...

Ah, but that's not true! The goal is to ensure that the face amount of the policy exceeds to premiums paid into it. What would you call that? If the insured stays alive during the policy term, the insurer profits. If not, the beneficiary does. If that's your kid, then he's the one who's profited off of the tragedy of your death.
 
Ahlevah said:
Generally speaking, people should buy life insurance when they need it, as in when they're young and have a family that depends on them. It's a tragedy when the unexpected happens, and dead young parents/spouses are normally considered a tragedy. The inference in my response was during the period the policy is in force, the policyholder is making a bet the insured is going to die. If that were a certainty, the insurer would not agree to take the bet.



Ah, but that's not true! The goal is to ensure that the face amount of the policy exceeds to premiums paid into it. What would you call that? If the insured stays alive during the policy term, the insurer profits. If not, the beneficiary does. If that's your kid, then he's the one who's profited off of the tragedy of your death.
Click to expand...

My death won't be a tragedy. It'll simply be me dying. My goal is to leave my son some money - whether it's more or less than what I pay in premiums is a chance I take, and would consider paying more the price of peace of mind, vs. a lost profit.

Don't assume to tell me my intentions, just so you can say "Ah ha" in a debate forum. I'm telling you the truth...I don't care if you accept it. :shrug: Chat or don't...no need to make stuff up.
 
That really depends on what you mean by "profit from tragedies."

For instance, I think it's perfectly fine for companies that make seat belts to profit from the fact that, without seat belts, there would be a lot more tragedies.
 
Lovebug said:
either financially or politically.
Click to expand...

I would have liked to vote no but no is not the reality. Tragedies have a yin and yang component and, you didn't really specify what tragedy meant. I was forced to vote yes because good can sometimes come out of tragedies and that could include both financial and political gain. Certainly with the recent mass shootings, Democrats want to use the tragedies to further their political careers.
 
Mach said:
From directly causing tragedy? Or profiting from something that leverages the tragedy to help a good cause that might prevent that tragedy by using those profits? The OP is so vague it has little meaning.
Click to expand...

Purposely so.
 
Moderate Right said:
I would have liked to vote no but no is not the reality. Tragedies have a yin and yang component and, you didn't really specify what tragedy meant. I was forced to vote yes because good can sometimes come out of tragedies and that could include both financial and political gain. Certainly with the recent mass shootings, Democrats want to use the tragedies to further their political careers.
Click to expand...

I agree but you are purposefully leaving out that Republicans want to use the tragedies to further their political careers.

I am not discounting how democrats use it or excusing how they are doing things, but it is not right to pretend that this is a one sided exploitation.
 
Lovebug said:
either financially or politically.
Click to expand...

I posted this in another thread. The current, soulless GOP have lied and cheated to get where they are. They've made it harder for Democrats to vote, they've gerrymandered their districts so severely they've actually won elections by getting fewer votes than Democrats. McConnell has obstructed legislation that would make our elections more fair and secure.

Democrats need to respond in kind. If the GOP are going to be street-fighters then the Democrats need to be also, or they're going to continue to lose.

Just remember who started it.
 
Kreton said:
I agree but you are purposefully leaving out that Republicans want to use the tragedies to further their political careers.

I am not discounting how democrats use it or excusing how they are doing things, but it is not right to pretend that this is a one sided exploitation.
Click to expand...

I don't deny that you are correct. Both sides do it.
 
OlNate said:
My death won't be a tragedy. It'll simply be me dying. My goal is to leave my son some money - whether it's more or less than what I pay in premiums is a chance I take, and would consider paying more the price of peace of mind, vs. a lost profit.

Don't assume to tell me my intentions, just so you can say "Ah ha" in a debate forum. I'm telling you the truth...I don't care if you accept it. :shrug: Chat or don't...no need to make stuff up.
Click to expand...

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not assuming anything. I asked you a question, specifically if you insured a loved one, not whether you were the insured. People take out life insurance policies for many different reasons, but often a young bread winner will take out a policy to protect his family against financial ruin if he should die unexpectedly. Maybe you're in no such position. That's why I asked. But many if not most people in such circumstances would consider such a death a tragedy. And no matter how one rationalizes it, the policyholder is hoping the beneficiary collects more in the form of a death benefit than he, the policyholder, pays out in premiums for the policy term. If that were not true, then he wouldn't make the bet in the first place. Now, that's not to say he's hoping the insured will die. He's not. But for the purpose of this transaction, if the insured does die the policyholder expects a profit from his investment in the policy just as the insurer would expect a profit if it won the bet and the insured didn't die.
 
maquiscat said:
So you are saying that disaster recovery services and funeral business should operate as a not for profit model?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Also therapists, trauma specialists, doctors, insurance companies.... Cops, I suppose, shouldn't be paid more than they absolutely need to survive, nor firefighters, nor EMTs...

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Lovebug said:
either financially or politically.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's a paradox. How else will they continue reporting without money? They could run on donations, like PBS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom