Finally? This is like my 3rd time explaining this point of view.
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).
Indeed to an extent. Infinite growth or die is the law of the current system. The CEO must generate revenue for the shareholders(millionaire and billionaire ones) or else they pull out and crash the company. How they generate that revenue is the question, and the UHC CEO did so by preventing care for people in an industry where he's supposed to provide care. But how accountable is Little Jimmy for putting $100 into a different stock, or Grandma Bessie for investing into a work fund? There are levels to this.
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.
As I said earlier, how accountable are investors? Again from MY point of view, fuck the CEO for refusing care for those who seek it, especially in an industry where he's supposed to provide help. It's very specific.
3-Ceo=/=Investor=/=Fucking Janitor=/=Truck driver=/=Telemarketing people. CEO and Investors run the show. The others don't. They are literal npcs.
As said before, little Jimmy put $100 in and Grandma Bessie has a stock market fund from work. Should they really be held to similar standards are rich investors who make the ball move? What about people who make, ship and sell the product for a paycheck knowing what it is? I can easily see your point of view, but I dont think you can see mine.
4-More like it makes health degrade slower. There is no healthy tobacco
Never said there was. I repeatedly said they are reducing the risks aka moving away from it and seeking smoke free zones. Not like they good people though. They are being forced to do it since tobacco is growing more and more unprofitable which is a good thing.
My point was never "this side is the lesser evil so I'm good."
5-Yes. There is no way i could have known that. Thnx for pointing that out. That argument is null.
Glad we're clear on this.
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?
No my argument was that any person invested into a company doesn't innately bare any similarity or slight comparison to a CEO that chose to end lives when hes supposed to extend them(again my POV). It's a broad statement vs a specific belief.
Which debating position? Care to elaborate, mr.instigator?
Just ignore him....
