This one I'm talking about
Is responsible for it, directly and on porpouse, as it saves money.

The people who runs it are evil and that.

I always thought I'd rather be a hooker, but now...
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:25, 2 replies, latest was 15 years ago)

would you really rather sell yourself?
Than work for a big company?
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:26, Reply)

It's not the big company thing
it's the actively messing with the environment for money.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:35, Reply)

even so
how is prostitution anymore justifiable in terms of the human condition than being bad to the environment?
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:37, Reply)

What's wrong with prostitution?

(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:37, Reply)

what's right with it?
This is probably an argument we can't have. No argument will change the mind of someone who doesn't see at first sight what's wrong with it
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:40, Reply)

What's right with it?
The same that with any other hard working job. Prostitution wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't illegal. The fact that the girls need "protection" from men that steal their money and drug them makes it a bad job. The fact that I have something that you want and you pay for it to get it is not wrong at all.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:42, Reply)

That argument makes no sense
in a perfect world prostitution might be a viable job.

Do we live in a perfect world? No. We live in a world where prostitution is generally (with exceptions) a violent, seedy and crime filled business. Sex trafficking, rape and drug addiction are all part of it. But it's not really rape is it? She (and it is in large part a woman) is offering her wares, you can't rape the willing, they're doing it for the money after all. The whole thing makes me sick.

And yeah I'm really not a prude, but I would never touch a man who had visited a prostitute. The power dynamics are fucked up beyond belief, and I would view with the greatest distaste anyone who needed to pay to get off.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:49, Reply)

But then I'm a weirdo I guess
and I know my views aren't shared by that many
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:52, Reply)

" ...I would view with the greatest distaste anyone who needed to pay to get off."
Does this include porn?
(Tugnut Ex of this parish, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 13:05, Reply)

If you mean BP
not really, no it's not. And the people who run it don't directly make the decisions that result in these issues, so I don't see why you'd call them evil.

It saves money because it's sole motive is to make profit and return for its shareholders. How it does that is directly driven by humanity's desire for oil, and things it does to save money are in direct response to the legislation it works to.

You can certainly say it doesn't care about the environment. But then it doesn't care about anything, because it can't because it isn't human and you are trying to project human characteristics onto an inanimate object.

If you are really looking for "responsibility" here, I'd consider the all-conquering US obsession with oil and specifically geographical self-sustainability with oil, that leads congress to permit deepwater drilling (which is fundamentally dangerous) in a hurricane zone with the bare minimum of protective or safety regs.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:36, Reply)

careful, you're giving serious answers on the internet again

( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:37, Reply)

I know, it's a fucking curse.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:39, Reply)

No, I don't mean BP
And yes, the people who run it, from where I work, make those decisions (in fact, I'm being paid now to prove that the ugly option is cheaper and better)

Of course they're here to make profit, but that doesn't mean I have to work for them and help them doing it (and it's not oil related)

Deepwater drilling done properly is not so dangerous, but in USA don't follow the same regulations as in EU.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:40, Reply)

deepwater drilling is always dangerous
because the rigs aren't solidly anchored. Oil and Gas 101. You're dead right about US/EU reg differences though.

Who are you talking about then, out of interest? I'd say if you have people at the very top making direct decisions about work then it's not very multinational in its behaviour
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:43, Reply)

I can't say, sorry
I signed I'd keep my mouth shut. I don't know if what I'm saying now it's too much in fact.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:45, Reply)

It's alright
Everyone here is on threats of arsekicking if we discuss Deepwater Horizon with the press, and I'm only an academic.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:47, Reply)

Oh, well
Are the Estates going to change the regulation to make it safer?

As you said, it's allways dangerous, but it can be made less dangerous.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:49, Reply)

almost certainly not
too much at stake from the US point of view. The irony of texan oilmen senators getting irate over oil spilt in the gulf was just too much, though.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:55, Reply)

Yep, it was quite laughable
If it hadn't been so sad.

They should all support things like this better: www.zdnet.com/news/google-funds-major-east-coast-wind-turbine-project/474406
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 14 Oct 2010, 13:03, Reply)

There are plenty of companies who deliberatly do something illegal
because the money saved is less than the punishment the goverment has for that crime.
Are you saying that is morally ok?
(PsychoChomp, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:40, Reply)

It's worse
If they do the legal thing by moving things around between different countries, so they don't need to pay any fine and end up putting more effluents in the environment than the other way round.

If you do something wrong and you pay for it, that's good. If you do something not too wrong here, and not too wrong there, and in the middle something quite wrong, but eh, who's going to care, it's international waters, then it's not so good.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:44, Reply)

Depends on how you view morals.
Individually, no. But you're still trying to apply individual human beliefs or contstraints onto an inanimate object. Morality, in your terms, does not apply to big business as it is not a human being.

But, as a direct answer, if the punishment is less than the profit they make, then humanity somewhere obviously considers the benefits outweigh the illegality, doesn't it? Or the punishment would be higher.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:46, Reply)

the only thing that anyone cares about
is money. the company will justify it by saying that they saved money which is better for their employees, shareholders and directors' duties. whether you believe this is exoneration depends on your own views i guess.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:49, Reply)

At a fundamental level it's not even money but human desire.
that creates the market that is then, and can then, be driven only by money.

Oil is dead easy. Tell people we can prevent anything like deepwater horizon ever happening again and cut CO2 emissions by 75% and they'd go "yay". Tell them that to do that 50% of them will have to give up their cars and the rest will pay £5 a litre for fuel and they'll all go "fuck off"

And that's the bottom line. Not multinationals, not cutting corners, but simple base human desire.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:53, Reply)

You're so right there
I had friends that are so green and cool, you know the type, always telling me off for working in a refinery. But if you tell them to stop using petrol (or plastics of any kind) they'd look at you as if you had killed a kitty.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Thu 14 Oct 2010, 13:02, Reply)

Not necessarily.
If a government in the 3rd world sets a fine of £50,000 for a something like heavy metal in the waters. To their local companies that would be enough to a multinational that's nothing.
Changing laws and punishments is a lot slower than buisiness works now, and their lobbiests slow it down as much as possible.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 14 Oct 2010, 12:56, Reply)