Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
This marxist copium to justify putting money into the poison industry said everything i need to know about you. Any business needs to make a profit to survive, if they don't it means they either covered their costs or lost money, ignorant. "Exploitation" is nowhere to be found in the actual definition of it:
"Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society."
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Capitalism
"Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society."
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Capitalism
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Capitalism
I guess the international monetary fund doesn't know what Captialism is either...You were saying? Who is it that doesn't understand basic concepts again? You can't drop the subject, because you are offended i called out your evident hypocrisy. An investor might not be as directly involved as a CEO, but that doesn't mean they don't hold their share(pun not intended) of guilt and responsability too. Oh, wait, investopedia doesn't know wtf it is talking about too:
https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2012/investing-in-unethical-stocks-the-pros-and-cons-for-traders-ltd-bti1116.aspx#:~:text=Unethical investing refers to investing,and alcohol can be unethical.
Investing in Unethical Stocks: Pros and Cons for Traders
When people discuss making an unethical investment, they're referring to the process of purchasing shares in a firm that engages in questionable operational or recruitment activities. The idea of turning away investments that aren’t ethical is founded on the long-standing principle of morality. It was upheld by the Quakers in 1758 when they withdrew their investments from the extremely lucrative slave trade.1
The concept of ethical investing has a long and well-documented history. It's received widespread acknowledgment in the current century largely due to modern society’s growing sense of social responsibility. This has led to the cultivation of specialist ethical investment funds for those with an awareness of and dislike for unethical business behavior.
Many companies still engage in less-than-savory practices despite this movement toward ethical investing, however, and these companies still attract investors. There are pros and cons to investing in unethical stocks. Whether or not to invest comes down to an individual’s moral compass.
Key Takeaways
Unethical investing can be extremely profitable when you consider industries that are perceived to thrive on addiction and human weakness. The tobacco industry serves as an example. Its leading players are often accused of hiding the truth about smoking and its wider health implications but they operate a highly lucrative business model.
Warren Buffett suggested that the sale of tobacco not only generates extremely high profit margins but also provides firms with access to a vast and captive target market.2
This growth points to the high consumer demand for tobacco products. People still want tobacco despite harsh criticism of the tobacco industry and the fact that smoking is widely considered a severe and potentially fatal health risk. Tobacco firms may be justified in questioning the criticism aimed at them with this in mind. They claim that they're merely providing a popular product to consenting and knowledgeable adults. Some investors may agree with that.
Another argument in support of unethical investing is put forward by leading international trader David Neubert. He chooses to exercise his ethical beliefs as a shareholder and refers to this process as socially conscious investing.
He may purchase shares in supposedly unethical companies to influence how they conduct their businesses and may ultimately effect change in this way.3 This type of shareholder activism is only possible with a significant stake but it does give socially aware investors the potential for bringing about better business practices.
The Argument Against Unethical Investing
Part of the challenge for investors lies in the definition of unethical investing. It’s a highly subjective and personal consideration. Firms that sell products such as tobacco, alcohol, and oil are often described as operating fundamentally unethical business models but they claim that they're acting within the law and fulfilling large consumer demand.
There are other criteria by which unethical investment opportunities can be judged, however, such as a company’s attitude toward labor and the working process that it and its associates employ. The issue of whether to invest becomes clearer when practices are looked at in terms of their ethical standing. The use of forced or underage labor is reprehensible by almost every moral code.
Several popular retail outlets have found themselves accused of supporting and even facilitating child labor in economically poor regions. The U.S. brand Victoria’s Secret (VSCO) found itself embroiled in a dispute over the use of fair trade cotton when suppliers claimed that they were unable to meet demand without employing child labor.4
Many companies have corporate social responsibility programs in place to ensure that they're contributing positively to society which ultimately makes for better business.
Primark, a budget clothing brand, suffered from similar accusations. The Ireland-based firm was accused of knowingly using child labor to maintain low retail prices and a high profit margin. It was reported that the company worked beside leading Indian textile firms that are known to use forced child labor.5
This recurring association between questionable recruitment procedures and leading players within the fashion industry is worrying. Any investment made in implicated brands could generate profit at the expense of children’s health, education, and personal freedom.
What Has Spurred More Ethical Investing?
The anti-apartheid movement of the 1970s had a role in bringing the issue of ethical investing to the forefront. The apartheid system of South Africa was a brutal form of racial segregation and oppression.
Student and community demands that colleges and universities divest their endowments of the stocks of companies that did business in South Africa brought attention to the issue of unethical investing. It also placed financial pressure on the companies themselves.
How Can I Invest More Ethically?
Establish the moral line that you won't cross when investing. Then carefully study who and what are involved—the companies, industries, business practices, and investment strategies—as you consider investments such as companies or mutual funds from a standpoint of financial return.
Try to learn about the people behind the companies and the regulations that guide the industry. Who are a company’s officers, a fund’s management, and the labor force? Search online for news of issues you may suspect. Contact companies for more information and to express concern. Decide if the potential investments meet your ethical standards after you’ve done your homework.
What’s a Famous Example of Unethical Business Behavior?
One example would be the behavior of investment manager Bernie Madoff. He acquired the trust of his many clients through his aura of respectability and by providing good returns. Those returns were unfortunately part of a massive Ponzi scheme that he'd engineered. He knowingly defrauded investors out of billions of dollars. Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison in 2009 and died there in 2021.
The Bottom Line
The definition of unethical investment is subjective. The decision as to whether unethical investments are for you and your capital isn’t always clear-cut. There are different sets of criteria by which unethical investments are judged. A stark distinction exists between companies that profit from the decisions of consenting adults and those that do so through the application of forced child labor.
Your task as an investor may be to balance the need for profit with your moral standards and to create a portfolio that reflects your most earnest personal beliefs.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100515/three-pillars-corporate-sustainability.asp
The only sad thing here is your delusion and Don Quixote syndrome.
Nah, fuck Governments, invest into bitcoin.
I guess the international monetary fund doesn't know what Captialism is either...You were saying? Who is it that doesn't understand basic concepts again? You can't drop the subject, because you are offended i called out your evident hypocrisy. An investor might not be as directly involved as a CEO, but that doesn't mean they don't hold their share(pun not intended) of guilt and responsability too. Oh, wait, investopedia doesn't know wtf it is talking about too:
https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2012/investing-in-unethical-stocks-the-pros-and-cons-for-traders-ltd-bti1116.aspx#:~:text=Unethical investing refers to investing,and alcohol can be unethical.
Investing in Unethical Stocks: Pros and Cons for Traders
When people discuss making an unethical investment, they're referring to the process of purchasing shares in a firm that engages in questionable operational or recruitment activities. The idea of turning away investments that aren’t ethical is founded on the long-standing principle of morality. It was upheld by the Quakers in 1758 when they withdrew their investments from the extremely lucrative slave trade.1
The concept of ethical investing has a long and well-documented history. It's received widespread acknowledgment in the current century largely due to modern society’s growing sense of social responsibility. This has led to the cultivation of specialist ethical investment funds for those with an awareness of and dislike for unethical business behavior.
Many companies still engage in less-than-savory practices despite this movement toward ethical investing, however, and these companies still attract investors. There are pros and cons to investing in unethical stocks. Whether or not to invest comes down to an individual’s moral compass.
Key Takeaways
- Unethical investing refers to investing in companies that engage in questionable business practices.
- Companies that sell products that are known to be harmful such as tobacco and alcohol can be unethical.
- Companies that allow wrong business practices such as harsh working conditions, unfair wages, and child labor, are also considered to be unethical companies.
- Investing in companies that engage in legal activities but sell dangerous products in high demand such as tobacco can be profitable.
- Companies that engage in illegal business practices such as child labor can suffer damage to their reputation and profits because much of society objects to morally wrong practices.
Unethical investing can be extremely profitable when you consider industries that are perceived to thrive on addiction and human weakness. The tobacco industry serves as an example. Its leading players are often accused of hiding the truth about smoking and its wider health implications but they operate a highly lucrative business model.
Warren Buffett suggested that the sale of tobacco not only generates extremely high profit margins but also provides firms with access to a vast and captive target market.2
This growth points to the high consumer demand for tobacco products. People still want tobacco despite harsh criticism of the tobacco industry and the fact that smoking is widely considered a severe and potentially fatal health risk. Tobacco firms may be justified in questioning the criticism aimed at them with this in mind. They claim that they're merely providing a popular product to consenting and knowledgeable adults. Some investors may agree with that.
Another argument in support of unethical investing is put forward by leading international trader David Neubert. He chooses to exercise his ethical beliefs as a shareholder and refers to this process as socially conscious investing.
He may purchase shares in supposedly unethical companies to influence how they conduct their businesses and may ultimately effect change in this way.3 This type of shareholder activism is only possible with a significant stake but it does give socially aware investors the potential for bringing about better business practices.
The Argument Against Unethical Investing
Part of the challenge for investors lies in the definition of unethical investing. It’s a highly subjective and personal consideration. Firms that sell products such as tobacco, alcohol, and oil are often described as operating fundamentally unethical business models but they claim that they're acting within the law and fulfilling large consumer demand.
There are other criteria by which unethical investment opportunities can be judged, however, such as a company’s attitude toward labor and the working process that it and its associates employ. The issue of whether to invest becomes clearer when practices are looked at in terms of their ethical standing. The use of forced or underage labor is reprehensible by almost every moral code.
Several popular retail outlets have found themselves accused of supporting and even facilitating child labor in economically poor regions. The U.S. brand Victoria’s Secret (VSCO) found itself embroiled in a dispute over the use of fair trade cotton when suppliers claimed that they were unable to meet demand without employing child labor.4
Many companies have corporate social responsibility programs in place to ensure that they're contributing positively to society which ultimately makes for better business.
Primark, a budget clothing brand, suffered from similar accusations. The Ireland-based firm was accused of knowingly using child labor to maintain low retail prices and a high profit margin. It was reported that the company worked beside leading Indian textile firms that are known to use forced child labor.5
This recurring association between questionable recruitment procedures and leading players within the fashion industry is worrying. Any investment made in implicated brands could generate profit at the expense of children’s health, education, and personal freedom.
What Has Spurred More Ethical Investing?
The anti-apartheid movement of the 1970s had a role in bringing the issue of ethical investing to the forefront. The apartheid system of South Africa was a brutal form of racial segregation and oppression.
Student and community demands that colleges and universities divest their endowments of the stocks of companies that did business in South Africa brought attention to the issue of unethical investing. It also placed financial pressure on the companies themselves.
How Can I Invest More Ethically?
Establish the moral line that you won't cross when investing. Then carefully study who and what are involved—the companies, industries, business practices, and investment strategies—as you consider investments such as companies or mutual funds from a standpoint of financial return.
Try to learn about the people behind the companies and the regulations that guide the industry. Who are a company’s officers, a fund’s management, and the labor force? Search online for news of issues you may suspect. Contact companies for more information and to express concern. Decide if the potential investments meet your ethical standards after you’ve done your homework.
What’s a Famous Example of Unethical Business Behavior?
One example would be the behavior of investment manager Bernie Madoff. He acquired the trust of his many clients through his aura of respectability and by providing good returns. Those returns were unfortunately part of a massive Ponzi scheme that he'd engineered. He knowingly defrauded investors out of billions of dollars. Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison in 2009 and died there in 2021.
The Bottom Line
The definition of unethical investment is subjective. The decision as to whether unethical investments are for you and your capital isn’t always clear-cut. There are different sets of criteria by which unethical investments are judged. A stark distinction exists between companies that profit from the decisions of consenting adults and those that do so through the application of forced child labor.
Your task as an investor may be to balance the need for profit with your moral standards and to create a portfolio that reflects your most earnest personal beliefs.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100515/three-pillars-corporate-sustainability.asp
Post automatically merged:
Such blindness in front of reality. So much submission to oppression.. It's kinda sad.
Post automatically merged:
Investing in tobacco 
Investing in national debts
Investing in national debts
Last edited:
Questionable. I think it is immoral. It's a matter of personal standards. The very fact that people debate if tobacco is or isn't a questionable industry implies, in fact, that it is a shady business after all. Unethical=/=Illegal. The CEO was no murderer. Watch out his family doesn't sue people that claim otherwise. Attributing crimes to people is definitely unethical( and illegal in some legislation).
Ok, old man. Now go watch some Carrot compilation or something.
I don't remember where i said that. But here in Brazil, by our laws, workers are forced to join unions and pay taxes to said unions. I think this is wrong. Most unions are tainted with Marxist/Leftist leaning ideologues too, which is something that rubs me the wrong way. I'm not against worker's right, but i do think workers/unions need to make up their minds on whether they would rather have 5372537290632906732 rights or actual jobs. These demands are often making employing people just not economically viable, therefore creating unemployment. Those are my 2 cents.
Your thoughts on investing on tobacco stocks?
Post automatically merged:
Don quixote would be you in our world mate. You are the one fighting things that do not exist.
Post automatically merged:
I don't remember where i said that. But here in Brazil, by our laws, workers are forced to join unions and pay taxes to said unions. I think this is wrong. Most unions are tainted with Marxist/Leftist leaning ideologues too, which is something that rubs me the wrong way. I'm not against worker's right, but i do think workers/unions need to make up their minds on whether they would rather have 5372537290632906732 rights or actual jobs. These demands are often making employing people just not economically viable, therefore creating unemployment. Those are my 2 cents.
Post automatically merged:
Your thoughts on investing on tobacco stocks?
:upscale()/2014/11/03/896/n/1922283/477f1ca893489582_tumblr_mar6h9t0Q21ra8x1ao7_500-1414588008.gif)
Last edited:
I never claimed you were equal to a CEO, nor that you were responsible for murder. Let's see who is making this fallacy here, first let's analyze the proper definition:
"A straw man argument is a distorted version of an opponent's argument that is easier to attack and refute. The term is also known as the straw man fallacy.
The structure of a straw man argument is as follows:
Uncle Van:"So you are saying that i can't criticize that CEO, because you suggest i'm equally responsible for deaths like him".
Like, bro. Stop distorting what people actually say.
"A straw man argument is a distorted version of an opponent's argument that is easier to attack and refute. The term is also known as the straw man fallacy.
The structure of a straw man argument is as follows:
- Person A makes a claim
- Person B distorts the claim into a weaker, more extreme version, known as the "straw man"
- Person B attacks the distorted version to refute Person A's original claim
- Teacher and reading and writing
A teacher proposes more time for math exercises, and a parent complains that the teacher doesn't care about reading and writing. The parent is misrepresenting the teacher's position. - Starbucks and Christmas
Evangelical groups equate Starbucks' holiday cups without traditional Christmas symbols with the removal of Christmas. However, the desire to be more inclusive and acknowledge non-Christians is different from the desire to destroy Christmas. - Security cameras
Person 1 says that more security cameras should be added because of thefts in the building. Person 2 responds by saying that Person 1 doesn't trust their neighbors. "
- Teacher and reading and writing
Uncle Van:"So you are saying that i can't criticize that CEO, because you suggest i'm equally responsible for deaths like him".
Like, bro. Stop distorting what people actually say.
Last edited:
Holy shit why 5 different posts?
Once again, you're obsessed with this idea that I'm trying to gatekeep tobacco for some reason, when the whole point is that you're comparing apples to oranges. For example, when I said that the company focuses to reducing the risks of tobacco in response to your comparison, you strawmanned by saying I believe their tobacco is healthier and honest, as if I ever said or implied such.
You use your own personal subjective morals to force somethings that's objectively inaccurate. You believe investing is just as immoral as the CEO making chooses to and the lives of people seeking help? OK sure. But it's inaccurate to call hypocrisy for saying a guy denying healthcare for profit when the other simply invests.
No. You are. You equated janitors to CEOs/Investors.
You said my point was moot, because your product is somehow different from the other tobaccos. Even if you guys somehow have the holy grail of Tobacco product, how could i even know that back in the early posts? You only said you invested into tobacco, not into incenses or whatever is it you invest into.
Again, who is strawmanning who? I never said they were as immoral, instead i said they were both immoral in their own way(these were the exact words i used). I already explained why i think its hipocrisy. It is subjective, a matter of personal standards.
...and you didn't quote a single one of them.
No, i'm merely refuting the things you are putting in my mouth. I never said or implied your situation was equal or similar to the CEO. You are projecting that shit into my posts. I brought the quotes. You ignored all of them and you keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
Gaslighting:
"Gaslighting is a psychological manipulation technique that involves making someone question their reality, perception, or mental stability. It's a form of emotional abuse that can cause victims to question their own feelings, instincts, and sanity.
Some tactics used in gaslighting include:
You did these two things i highlighted. First you keep accusing me of saying things i never did. Then you posted that ridiculous copium about your tobacco being different from the others and therefore my criticism being null.
You said my point was moot, because your product is somehow different from the other tobaccos. Even if you guys somehow have the holy grail of Tobacco product, how could i even know that back in the early posts? You only said you invested into tobacco, not into incenses or whatever is it you invest into.
Again, who is strawmanning who? I never said they were as immoral, instead i said they were both immoral in their own way(these were the exact words i used). I already explained why i think its hipocrisy. It is subjective, a matter of personal standards.
...and you didn't quote a single one of them.
Post automatically merged:
No, i'm merely refuting the things you are putting in my mouth. I never said or implied your situation was equal or similar to the CEO. You are projecting that shit into my posts. I brought the quotes. You ignored all of them and you keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
Gaslighting:
"Gaslighting is a psychological manipulation technique that involves making someone question their reality, perception, or mental stability. It's a form of emotional abuse that can cause victims to question their own feelings, instincts, and sanity.
Some tactics used in gaslighting include:
- Lying: Lying repeatedly and often brazenly
- Contradicting themselves: Making statements that contradict themselves
- Criticizing: Criticizing the victim's abilities, decisions, or judgments
- Withdrawing support: Withdrawing affection, support, or approval as a form of punishment or control
- Minimizing: Minimizing the impact of comments or criticisms
You did these two things i highlighted. First you keep accusing me of saying things i never did. Then you posted that ridiculous copium about your tobacco being different from the others and therefore my criticism being null.
Last edited:
No. You are. You equated janitors to CEOs/Investors.
You said my point was mute, because your product is somehow different from the other tobaccos. Even if you guys somehow have the holy grail of Tobacco product, how could i even know that back in the early posts? You only said you invested into tobacco, not into incenses or whatever is it you invest into.
Again, who is strawmanning who? I never said they were as immoral, instead i said they were both immoral in their own way(these were the exact words i used). I already explained why i think its hipocrisy. It is subjective, a matter of personal standards.
...and you didn't quote a single one of them.
You said my point was mute, because your product is somehow different from the other tobaccos. Even if you guys somehow have the holy grail of Tobacco product, how could i even know that back in the early posts? You only said you invested into tobacco, not into incenses or whatever is it you invest into.
Again, who is strawmanning who? I never said they were as immoral, instead i said they were both immoral in their own way(these were the exact words i used). I already explained why i think its hipocrisy. It is subjective, a matter of personal standards.
...and you didn't quote a single one of them.
However, I believe the CEO is responsible since he deliberately makes the choices to lead people to their deaths by denying life-saying care for profit, and that there's nothing wrong with everyday people investing to make a living. So with this, being called a hypocrite implies having similarities to what I said. "How does investing a stock make one unable to talk down to someone making choices to deny people healtcare???". Apples to oranges and creates a ton of other questions like whether someone who works in the industry is also in the same boat. It's not a strawman, but pointing out what that logic indicates and challenging your consistency.
The talk of reducing tobacco was to further emphazie the apples to oranges comparison and the faulty hypocrisy claim, since one side makes someone's health better while the other(CEO), makes it worse. Granted, you had no way of knowing that since I just said "tobacco stock" aka a stock that most likely sells tobacco.
Does this make things easier to follow?
Yes, finally you get it.
1-Exactly. That is your subjective opinion and i believe otherwise. If one can claim that a CEO needs to be held accountable, one could claim that so do investors, since CEOs work for shareholders profits(using your own words here).
2-Not really apples to oranges, cause i never claimed them to be equivalent. You cannot accuse CEO of being responsible, while pretending that investors don't take any part in it. Claiming otherwise IS hypocrisy. Who works for who again? "Ceo's work for shareholder's profit"-Uncle Van, a dozen pages ago. Your industry is less shady, but still fucked up, anyway.
3-Ceo=/=Investor=/=Fucking Janitor=/=Truck driver=/=Telemarketing people. CEO and Investors run the show. The others don't. They are literal npcs.
4-More like it makes health degrade slower. There is no healthy tobacco.
5-Yes. There is no way i could have known that. Thnx for pointing that out. Your argument is null.
Your whole argument is: "I'm no hypocrite, cause i'm not directly responsible like the CEO and so i cannot be compared to that guy". This is true and at the same time it is also copium. I never claimed you were directly responsible, that was never my critique. I never made that false equivalency. All i was saying is that, as I see things , investors also need to be held accountable for whatever they finance. So, therefore, they too should receive scrutiny.
CEO and Investors have a symbiotic relationship. A investor cannot simply crucify someone that works for their their profits, doing so would be hypocritical. It's like a dog biting the hands that feed him. Yeah, insurance industry is more fucked up than tobacco one, still doesn't make it an ethical industry. Where is the moral high ground for the tobacco folk to bash the health insurance folk? It's like drug dealers pointing fingers to negligent/corrupt doctors. They both have blood on them. Did we clear up the confusion now? Did my point get to you now?
1-Exactly. That is your subjective opinion and i believe otherwise. If one can claim that a CEO needs to be held accountable, one could claim that so do investors, since CEOs work for shareholders profits(using your own words here).
2-Not really apples to oranges, cause i never claimed them to be equivalent. You cannot accuse CEO of being responsible, while pretending that investors don't take any part in it. Claiming otherwise IS hypocrisy. Who works for who again? "Ceo's work for shareholder's profit"-Uncle Van, a dozen pages ago. Your industry is less shady, but still fucked up, anyway.
3-Ceo=/=Investor=/=Fucking Janitor=/=Truck driver=/=Telemarketing people. CEO and Investors run the show. The others don't. They are literal npcs.
4-More like it makes health degrade slower. There is no healthy tobacco.
5-Yes. There is no way i could have known that. Thnx for pointing that out. Your argument is null.
Your whole argument is: "I'm no hypocrite, cause i'm not directly responsible like the CEO and so i cannot be compared to that guy". This is true and at the same time it is also copium. I never claimed you were directly responsible, that was never my critique. I never made that false equivalency. All i was saying is that, as I see things , investors also need to be held accountable for whatever they finance. So, therefore, they too should receive scrutiny.
CEO and Investors have a symbiotic relationship. A investor cannot simply crucify someone that works for their their profits, doing so would be hypocritical. It's like a dog biting the hands that feed him. Yeah, insurance industry is more fucked up than tobacco one, still doesn't make it an ethical industry. Where is the moral high ground for the tobacco folk to bash the health insurance folk? It's like drug dealers pointing fingers to negligent/corrupt doctors. They both have blood on them. Did we clear up the confusion now? Did my point get to you now?
Last edited: