bestdoc69@believeme.biz

That's not a tautology.

i actually find gutfield semi-entertaining

i grew up republican and watched red eye a lot during the summer. prob doesn't hold up now. i think he is more libertarian than republican though. he seems relatively capable of making fun of republicans iirc

"the left thinks"

literally no one thinks this except for like communists

Yes it is. A tautology in logic is a statement which is true by necessity.

How come The Onion hasn't done an article like this: "After months of gaffes and mistakes, Donald J. Trump resigns from the Donald J. Trump campaign"

It's obvious the problem is him and not any staffers. But with the hiring of Breitbart people, it just seems like he's preparing for Donald Trump TV to launch right after the election ends.

That's the definition of a tautology alright, but it still wasn't one.

The only way the first statement is true is if the second one isn't.

I agree if you ask the left (of which I count myself a member) the question in that form they will of course say they don't believe that. However, this is the logical jump they are making when business is vilified as some kind of monolithic evil.

I think generally when people refer to business as evil they're referring to Fortune 500 or other large companies, and not smaller businesses more likely to be run by a family or whatever.

Perhaps I am not stating my point very well.

My point is that the presence of some evil people in business is meaningless in terms of defining some kind of essential quality of business. Some factions of the left however think it does somehow define the entire enterprise.

I wouldn't say the "big corporations" are "evil," but by they are required to value profits for their shareholders above all else as a matter of law and it is a "tautology" this can lead to some problematic behavior.

No, a tautology is an argument which is true by necessity. A logical statement, which "Some people in business are bad" is, can either be true or false. You need to show more work to prove it's always true.

The fact that it is harmful that an immense amount of power is held by publicly traded companies which are essentially legally bound to value profit and growth over social or environmental responsibility hardly implies that business people are all evil individuals.

Edit: slow pony

Image management was most important early in my career at giant corp. A bunch of young people trying to get noticed by busy bosses that didn't have the time to know you. It paid to self promote and network.

Really? So if it were stein vs trump you'd vote trump? Vaccines is your single issue?

It can't be false, can it? There are literally billions of people working in business in some capacity.

Forgetting the business part, 'shameless bull**** artist' does work really well in a lot of different fields.

There's a certain type of poster that does very poorly on 2+2 (or I assume any online community) in large part because their ability to say contradictory things over time to try to make their point or build their image is easy to catch when everything is written down and searchable.

But just because they are obviously bad here doesn't mean they don't have relatively successful careers. Because it's a lot harder to get caught in your many lies - particularly by the people above you who are most responsible for your career success.

It ISN'T false but that's not the same thing as it CAN'T be false.

All true statements in logic are true by necessity.

Trump is also an anti-vaxxer

I realize I am pushing the limits of the definition a little for the purposes of making my point. I am saying it's so close to being impossible to be false that it has no meaning and can be treated as 100%.

Statistically it would be nearly impossible and I'm sure you could find at least one example to prove your assertion true but that doesn't make it a tautology.

The grammar nits on 2p2 will take turns, one after the other eating my choad.

It's not a matter of law its a matter of ethics. The biggest conflict is getting management to act in the shareholders best interest and not their own. I understand that the board of coca-cola doesn't spend a ton of time thinking about shuttering operations given the poor health effects of sugary drinks and I am ok with that.