Interestingly, when I reflect, it feels more like I, or my company, was being taken advantage of more than it feels like I was offering bribes for sales. I never felt ripped off over cash, although definitely over loss of my time, after a dinner meeting or basketball game, as it was the company's money, earmarked for such, but it was my time spent.
Admittedly, I've never been the greatest sales person (I was technically..err.. technical sales, meaning I was shitty at both). Still, having my best performing customer tell me my competitor is buying him dinner next week, or took him golfing last Thursday to talk about their latest product, would get me pretty riled up, and I'd give that customer more focused attention instead of the general good-old-boy chats. The customer quite obviously knows what telling me this will do for him; I may have to re-evaluate prices, or I may just end up feeding him for a night as we chat business. I was lucky to have a great product at a competitive price to sell, but I can certainly say that there are high-maintenance customers and low-maintenance customers, and knowing which is which at any given time, and what to do about it, is something I've always struggled with. Nobody comes out and asks for a bribe, but many people want to meet with you at "such and such steakhouse" or "over the suns game" or "over a few drinks at xyz". All that shit happens after business hours, too, which sucks balls after a while. At what point is it ALL considered bribery?
What made all of this VERY weird, and the reason I left sales, is that these are people you actually do become friends with, but that cannot and must not affect the sales relationship. That old-timey gangster phrase "It's just business." just before a whack is spot on accurate.
If I'd have been you, I'd have been very tempted to spend the $4.99, and make it obvious that I had nail clippers to the security guys.
I'm a man after your own heart; I briefly considered and then immediately rejected this idea. My prostate refused to let me go forward with it, perhaps because I was at LAX instead of Helsinki, which, I imagine, welcomes taunting of their "security" personnel. Here in the states, they violate you unspeakably for stuff like that.
It can be tricky for me to keep a level head when something I used to do on a weekly basis with no guilt gets called "unethical", and I missed a few things here and there in my righteous fury.
I have realized where the disconnect is; the things I used to do were sanctioned by both my company and my client's company, and gifts and travel had a strict value cap, and were expected to be used when appropriate. More often than not, gifts would consist of a nice dinner, or, as stated, bringing them to our offices, though every once in a while I'd fly to them on their dime, which was pretty iffy since I only speak English.
Dealing so heavily with Japanese and Korean companies, and later on, Chinese companies, truly was one of the most fulfilling business times of my life; it is utterly amazing how different things can be - for instance, the Korean bosses would have their young women hold doors open for them; it was SUPER awkward when I tried to hold the door for her, first, remembering what me mum taught me. Still, much is very much the same, and yes, when ethical boundaries get blurred, you must do your best to hold to your own personal code first, your company's second, and your client's a distant third. Good salesfolks are prepared for this going in.
That's fair. It's the point I missed; it is definitely a bribe to offer the representative a "personal solid" (as in, fly a dude's family to DisneyWorld) in exchange for his ability to coerce the company's co-operation versus offering the company a "corporate solid" (as in flying their representative to my headquarters in Orlando).
I guess what makes the difference, to me, is whether both companies are aware of and have sanctioned the "solid", and whether it is a vehicle to move business forward. The "personal solid" is very, very easy to figure out (so easy that I wasn't even thinking in these terms, for which I apologize), and shouldn't be done, as you point out. The "corporate solid" isn't necessarily so cut and dry.
It can be a pretty fine line between business meetings and catering to strip clubs and steakhouses, and even then, some corporations welcome that type of "solid" for their head honchos. Many of my past business associates loved talking business over sushi and saki (or bulgogi and soju), and if you're the one selling, it's an unspoken agreement that you'll pick up the tab. That is not a bribe, but a cost of doing business with certain cultures that simply needs to be accounted for, if you expect to be taken seriously.
As for cultures that expect to have a *personal* bribe stuffed in their front shirt, well, I'd politely try to find out what is expected of me as a sales person, and if the dude's boss and/or my boss don't sanction the gift, it doesn't happen. A business gift is actually a sanctioned bribe, from a very cynical viewpoint. Regardless, the gift shouldn't ever be worth more than a nice dinner (i.e. couple hundred US dollars at the maximum); this is why most corporations have upper limits on how much value a gift can have and still be accepted.
I guess the closest real-life equivalent I can think of are public figures like Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly, who do often get called on their shit, but say it anyway. I think that the Rev's, also, get called out on their shit, but they have more public momentum right now. I don't think it's a matter of who's side is right (they're both pretty damn nutjob to me) but one of where the public opinion will land the hardest.
Good call. I'd be interested to know what the crime rate and conviction rate of all demographics at various levels of income are. That's a far more interesting statistic, and one we can actually do something about.
The issue I have with that statement is that it really has nothing to with Juan Williams' personal view on the matter. As a professional pundit, the only possible reason for him to come out and say something like this is to excuse this type of behavior as normal. Agreed, we're missing context here, but nobody really cares what behavior Juan exhibits on a plane, but all of his fans care which behavior Juan thinks is appropriate to exhibit on a plane. Yet another way to say "it's ok to feel that way, most people (like me!) do too."
Fuck that, it's NOT ok, and dressing it up by saying "I'm not a bigot" and "I get nervous [when Muslims identify themselves as Muslim]" really shouldn't be fooling anybody. If you're nervous about Muslims, or black guys, or the Irish, or the Canadians, then it's your job to talk to the ones you meet so you realize that people are people and assholes are assholes. You'll find some of the second in some of the first no matter what demographic you're dealing with.. What sort of ego do we all have to think we're important enough to be the target of every single person that happens to be in one of a great many demographics?
I think that while your take on Juan's comment IS a bit pedantic, it's also very important to show the distinction between bigoted and racist, just as it's important to distinguish between the various different types of cancer.
If anything, those scary Muslims probably have a LOT to talk about regarding cultural differences. I'm sure many Muslims would appreciate the hell out of being approached all friendly-like without getting the "zomg beard-bomber!" look, and if they don't, well, not wanting to be your friend isn't unique to the Muslim culture, last I checked. I sincerely doubt that your attempt at conversation will be what tips the scale toward "That's it, I'm bombing this bitch with my standard-issue Muslim explosive device.", so learn to treat people like people.
I suppose it depends on how the bribe was requested and subsequently turned down. Option 1 and option 3 are not mutually exclusive (unless you turned down the bribe in such a fashion you've already lost business, in which case you're a poor negotiator).
For a less corporate-y example, I deal with situations all the time where someone wants me to make them free prints as "samples" before they'll purchase from me. They've seen my work, they don't need samples of it to know it's good. Rather than give them a whole bunch of free work, which is unethical (even if only to myself and my other small list of clients) I'll offer to show them around my shop, watching other work get done, and perhaps take them to lunch to discuss bulk rates etc.
I don't see this as being unethical in any way, and I also don't see it being a problem for corporate America, so long as the boss in question is authorized to do it. I still don't get why offering option #3 as an alternative to a cash bribe is wrong, especially if it's an established practice for the company (and, in my experience, I've not worked for a company where it wasn't).
Hell, one of my old co-workers used to smuggle weed and smoke his clients out in his hotel room prior to selling them our software; THAT was unethical. Flying them over from China? Every day business. Maybe I should be arguing from the standpoint of "turning down a bribe appropriately and cleverly, and/or offering company-sanctioned non-bribe alternatives is a valid and very successful 4th option".
Very well written, thank you. I'll bow to your better judgement (at least I know when I'm beat). Not that you need my permission, but you can go ahead and not suffer me gladly.
Of course you are. But you're missing the point. Spending money to accomplish business-related activities (the specific example given is flying the client to Orlando to meet with you) isn't unethical in the first place.
Apparently I should have argued with my mod points instead of my words, for this is NOT going well. (new sig? hmm)
Sadly your links do not help me, for I must be retarded. Can you try again, this time explaining, with very small words, what concepts you are referring to, and how they bolster your argument that the two concepts were not being compared? Bonus points if you can directly refute the arguments I have given in support of my conclusion that they are (I'll even reiterate them for you below) without insulting me again (this may be difficult for you; but I'll get it out of the way up front: remember, I am a retarded and self-absorbed dick that needs practice talking to people).
As said self-absorbed dick (note that I'm just giving you that one, although you didn't really explain why this is true, either. I gather it's just a fun name to call people who have ever engaged in any type of sales), I would like you to teach me, oh master of the internet, how attacking my position on the ethical discussion of paying for business-related activities (such as flying a potential client to my office, and even extending that to business lunches or a round of golf) by bringing murdered orphans into the discussion is:
a) not a direct comparison by asking me "if you're ok with doing one small bad thing, would you also be ok with doing one huge bad thing?", and
b) conducive to the discussion I was trying to have in the first place without completely ignoring my argument, which is that flying the client to my office is NOT unethical in the first place?
Murdered orphans is a super powerful phrase that can win many arguments (especially those relating to murdered orphans, because, duh), but I think you and your buddy need to use it more responsibly by providing a proper argumentative support structure and tying it in a little better to the discussion at hand. Otherwise, shit goes all pear-shaped as people begin to randomly ask questions like "Are you going to LET THE ORPHANS DIE by not buying all your turkey from Safeway on Tuesdays?" to "win" arguments about The Year of the Linux Desktop! (WTF, right?). In so doing, you zoom right past discussing the original discussion point, and waste everybody's time so you can pretend you're superior. Nazis shouldn't be the only aspect of Godwin's law.
Well, yes, I agree with this completely, and for the very reasons you point out, option 2 is a horrible and just plain wrong solution. My point was simply that I don't see anything unethical about flying a client (and his family) to meet with me in the first place, any more than I see a trip to the golf course or a business lunch as unethical. I've been on both sides of that particular "bribe" and I've said "no" just as often as I've said "yes" on both sides of the table (sadly, my clients typically say "no" too often for my tastes, but that's life).
I don't see how it's even in the same realm as a bribe, which, to me, would consist of giving someone cash or some other un-related gift in order to secure their business outright.
Nah, not really what I was trying to say here. I'm actually more on your side with this; the point I was trying to make is that all the folks saying "Option 1, cut and dry!" aren't really thinking the situation through. They are ignoring the many reasons to want to fly a client to your location, and there are also plenty of reasons to fly yourself out and see them (you just pointed out several great reasons for doing both).
It's less about a cultural pissing contest and more about establishing a relationship to facilitate discussions about "this is how we do task A here, how do you do it there?" One of my most fond memories was working with a friend from China, who generally had the same value systems that I do. It was mind-boggling, though, on the things that were different. Same with another friend from Israel; odd to do business when you had to figure out how to keep your goods from passing through red zones (which sometimes included my boss!).
I guess I just don't get the rabid venom people using to attack jellomizer's third option; it seems a pretty regular thing to do from what I've seen.
How are the two NOT being compared? The GP's question, rephrased: "Offering bribes is unethical, but you're willing to do it for cultural reasons. Well, what if murdering orphans was a cultural tradition. Would you do it then?" For fuck's sake, YOU compared the two by basically asking "Since your job requires offering bribes, if your job required orphan killing would you ALSO be ok with MURDERING ORPHANS, you scum?"
But whatever, I'm obviously in the minority here, and I'm getting more pissed off than it's worth. I'll keep taking my clients to lunch to keep my little shop running, and hope my competitors agree with all you dumbasses.
Maybe I totally missed what's wrong with Option 3 then. Sure, it seemed packaged to resemble a hidden bribe, but flying foreign contacts into the country to conduct business happens near-daily at all the companies I've worked for that have a foreign presence. By your logic, fronting the cash to set up a video-conference is just as unethical. Perhaps the offer to bring the family with is the issue people are making, but I don't see how it's any worse; having the client's family see the local area facilitates easier trips in the future. If a company offered to fly you and your family out to China to discuss a very lucrative offer for your latest software creation, would you turn down the trip and the business? No, because in only the most asinine thought-bubble is this even CLOSE to the same thing as a cash bribe.
Your comparison of flying my new Chinese buddy out here so the board and I can chat with him about the direction we're taking the semiconductor division over the next 4 years to murdering orphans is stupid as hell. Also, it's not about "making more money" it's about doing your fuckin job, which, in sales, is to make and maintain as many relationships as you can. Even outside the business world, a friendship that isn't maintained is lost. Not getting this simple fucking point is why we in IT harbor such contempt for sales people; they're working just as hard as we are, and while, admittedly, many of these folks get into a gray area ethically, the vast majority are just trying to follow the rules and do a good job, just like us.
You had me right up until Whiny Liberal Activists.
Option 3 happens all day, erry day, in the business world, and the only time anybody actually complains is when the "gift" becomes fur coats, stock options, straight up cash, etc. In your example, Option 3 actually had value from a business standpoint, in that the client gets to see your facilities, staff, meet you in person, etc. It is simply a way to cover all the bases, get the client into your sphere of influence, and attempt to show him the value of buying your product. Throwing fur coats or cash at a potential client is nothing more than an attempt to pay him to buy from you (literal bribe). This is one reason a golf course is such a powerful place to conduct business. The difference is on a personal level, and while it's subtle to some people, it's most definitely there.
If you've ever paid for a lunch for your friends, family, girlfriend, etc to talk about something important, you've done the same thing. By offering to pay for lunch at your favorite restaurant, you're bringing them further into your social circle, strengthening the relationship, and providing a comfortable place for the discussion to unfold. It's FAR different from, say, mailing $300 cash and a proposal note to your girlfriend (by the way, if this actually works, you should hit the eject button. Just sayin.)
Option 1 is not necessarily the best answer. It could be argued that Option 1 is the worst answer, ethically, because you're not even trying to come up with a solution for all parties involved (including yourself); you're simply avoiding deeper thought about the decision to help only yourself.
Option 3 seems like the best compromise, all around, and if the company is willing to bring the client and family out for a visit (which happens all the time), the option of showing him OUR culture opens up. This seems like the best ethical decision, long-term, because you have a better chance, over time, of teaching said client how business is done ethically in the US, just as he has a chance to teach you more about his own culture does business. Without this type of compromise on a broad scale, what you're suggesting leads to a breakdown of international trade.
The point is, just because you say "Option 1 is the correct answer" without providing support for your argument doesn't make it so, and there are hundreds of permutations that should be considered in situations like this. It's not as easy as you make it sound, nor are the "businesspeople" all a bunch of greedy douchebags bribing their way to the top to make a quick buck (most, maybe, but not all. =)
It's really not as cut and dry as listing out the romance options like that; in this case the backstory has LOADS to do with the characters in questions.
As it stands, I think there's 3 homosexual options for a female Shepard (Liara, Allers, and Traynor) and 2 homosexual options for male Shepard (Cortez and Kalenko). The nature of Asari reproduction arguably puts Liara into her own unique category.
Lastly, I think there is a total of 6 heterosexual characters in the game (Ashley, Tali, Jack and Miranda for male characters; Jacob and Garrus for female characters), and Jack, Miranda, and Jacob can only be courted if you also courted them in Mass Effect 2 and imported the save.
Every single one of my gay friends' agendas look somewhat like this:
Get HapSlappy drunk as FUCK because he tips HUGE when he's wasted, and we are all bartenders.
I don't pretend to know what all gay folks want to accomplish in life, but I've got the gay bartender in SLC agenda figured right the hell out. Interestingly, the straight bartender agenda is ass-poundingly similar...
You are very well spoken, and it's always nice to disagree with someone who speaks well and not rudely, so thank you for that.
I've always taken issue with the argument for "hate the sin and love the sinner". There's an implicit judgement being made in that statement, with an attempt to deflect that judgement somewhat by pre-emptively promising love, regardless, and implying forgiveness once the "sin" stops. The phrase sounds pretty great on the surface, but even in Christian terms, it's God that should do the judging, never us, meaning the true form of the phrase should simply read "Love thy neighbor" (where have I heard that before....:).
It feels especially egregious to say "hate the sin, love the sinner" in regards to homosexuality, because you are essentially saying: "You do know that the life-changing and terrifying character trait that you spent years (sometimes decades) recognizing, agonizing over, overcoming fear of, accepting, and finally practicing, in a society that often doesn't accept you, is actually a horrible sin, right? It's ok though because I'll still love you even though God loathes that what you're doing makes you happy! Hugz!"
This really does feel like an awfully presumptive statement to make, and it's really no wonder that homosexual folks often feel misunderstood and frustrated by those that actually do have pretty good intentions. It's a sticky situation for a Christian to be in, and this very subject is actually why I'm no longer Christian. Homosexuality is so central to who and what a person is that you really cannot separate the "sin" from the person, any more than you can other traits like "is athletic" or "likes to run" or (admittedly, this last one is my researched opinion) "has blue eyes". You also cannot decide that the behavior isn't a sin, as it has been commanded by God as such, but something has to give; the middle ground doesn't exist on this one.
Here's an interesting tidbit: One thing my old church did was establish gay organizational units, but forbade homosexual contact of a sexual nature. In so doing, the church admitted that the homosexual character trait exists, but did not go so far as permitting these men to express it physically. Many of these men are married with a kid or two, in extreme cases by in vitro impregnation, but haven't actually had sex with their wives in decades, if ever, because they feel "wrong" when attempting it, and only really feet comfortable physically around men like themselves. Most are able to resist their "urges" because their god commanded them to, though the bishop did have to give dis-fellowships to those that could not. Regardless, these men are still unable to find themselves attracted to their wives or women in general in the same sexual way as to their compatriots.
Quite frankly, this seems like a hideous torture to put someone through, and one that my codified beliefs couldn't withstand. I left my church shortly after I watched the church-produced documentary, which was intended to be instructional for church leaders. I don't pretend to know God's plan, but I feel it in my bones that wasn't part of it.
Hmm. I guess I agree with you in principle about special treatment, but unless a group of people does get vocal and demands they be noticed, they won't get what they want.
As far as gay sex being nasty (or fat sex, or even chocolate ice cream)... well, frankly, it's YOUR head filling itself with nasty images, man. Being gay isn't about sex; it's about who you're attracted to and which gender provides more companionship to you. The only people bringing the gay sex into the situation are the people who don't like the gay sex.
Perhaps you should figure out why you think about the sex that gay, fat, or chocolate ice cream flavored people have when you see them in the first place? Problem solved. In any case, just because you think it's gross doesn't mean it's a sin, or that it's as wrong as a random punch in the face.
1)The point of laws are not really to create the maximum amount of fairness or happiness.
2)Someone might have the opinion that men are genetically made to fill one role and women another so the laws should enforce that/discourage feminism from actually hurting women (as an anarchist I would have to strongly disagree with laws enforcing this type of stuff, but as someone very much interested in genetics and evolution would say that the idea should not be dismissed as religious bullshit).
3)Just like freeing the slaves hurt slave owners, freeing the women made men lose power....
You, sir, are very clever with these three arguments, and I want you to know that I see what you did there. Sometimes I forget that people actually do base their beliefs on these types of arguments, and I cannot afford to dismiss that fact since there are so many who do.
There is one problem, though; those laws you cited are only enforceable when there's evidence of a crime. While I don't really agree, there are actually valid arguments against pot (gateway drug? Pfft whatever... but at least I sort of understand the argument) and bestiality (the animal has no way to consent, so it should/could really be considered animal cruelty, even in private. I suppose that if the animal *could* provide proper consent the way a human partner could, then sure, have at, so long as it's in private so as not to be considered an obscene act by the public, but sorry, boys, that's just not looking like it's gonna be possible. Until your dog is smart enough to learn shakespeare and calculus, you really shouldn't screw it. The fact that it's gross to think about is a side-note and should have no bearing on the laws on bestiality, until it happens in public, at which point, sure, call it obscene. The act can be obscene, but you can't yell at ME because you're thinking about the act. In any case, bestiality is not even in the same realm as two consenting adults behaving however they want in private).
Even with with polygamy it *could* be argued that it's harmful to the families involved (although I'm one to say if a man wants that level of misery, so be it and good luck, bro). A gay marriage doesn't even have that to hold against it, unless you think actually being gay is itself harmful to the people or their friends/family in some way, to which I say "Prove it without using the bible.". In any case, it's not illegal (or at least en-forcibly illegal) to swear or get a blowjob or do it doggy-style or watch porn except where someone can see or hear you; and I'll even grant that a detailed description of the act in public is borderline obscene.
But, even delving into obscenity laws, the supporters of these types of laws are basically saying that in their imaginations, gay folks are always obscene, so being gay and married isn't the same as being straight an married, so, ever-so-logically, no insurance for the yuckies!!!! Would it be "obscene" for me to say "I sometimes swear when I hit my thumb with a hammer."? Of course not; I didn't go into any sort of graphic detail in any way. What if I instead say "My boyfriend and I got married a few years ago, and we would like to have all the benefits that other married couples get."? If this offends you, you should really be rooting the icky out of your own imagination instead of blaming me.
What's stupid about that is it's a totally subjective complaint, anyway; some people are offended if I kiss my girlfriend (much as I argue for gay rights, sadly, I'm not fabulous! in real life) in public, while others would offer to pay us to get naked (she'd get paid, like, WAY more than me. She's hot and also may be reading this later;). I can also guarantee that some of the most vocal heterosexual couples engage in some seriously freaky shit in private that would make even the icky gays cry if they witnessed it, so it's an utterly stupid argument altogether (I believe, from your presentation, that you actually agree with me, in principle, so thanks for that).
The way to draw the line is to do so between public life and private life. Realistically, a gay marriage has no more to do with sex or obscenity than a heterosexual marriage; the straight folks don't need to prove they fuck no more than 3 times a week, missionary only (no icky stuff, you!), and only for procreation purposes, in order to get on a family medical plan, and neither should homosexual couples. It's a completely irrelevant issue.
True, far too many people support this type of idiocy from a position bereft of logic, but the only way to start peeling supporters away is to explain that what they are supporting, and, hence, combating, isn't what they think it is. The "obscenity" is tangential to the argument, at best.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly, when I reflect, it feels more like I, or my company, was being taken advantage of more than it feels like I was offering bribes for sales. I never felt ripped off over cash, although definitely over loss of my time, after a dinner meeting or basketball game, as it was the company's money, earmarked for such, but it was my time spent.
Admittedly, I've never been the greatest sales person (I was technically..err.. technical sales, meaning I was shitty at both). Still, having my best performing customer tell me my competitor is buying him dinner next week, or took him golfing last Thursday to talk about their latest product, would get me pretty riled up, and I'd give that customer more focused attention instead of the general good-old-boy chats. The customer quite obviously knows what telling me this will do for him; I may have to re-evaluate prices, or I may just end up feeding him for a night as we chat business. I was lucky to have a great product at a competitive price to sell, but I can certainly say that there are high-maintenance customers and low-maintenance customers, and knowing which is which at any given time, and what to do about it, is something I've always struggled with. Nobody comes out and asks for a bribe, but many people want to meet with you at "such and such steakhouse" or "over the suns game" or "over a few drinks at xyz". All that shit happens after business hours, too, which sucks balls after a while. At what point is it ALL considered bribery?
What made all of this VERY weird, and the reason I left sales, is that these are people you actually do become friends with, but that cannot and must not affect the sales relationship. That old-timey gangster phrase "It's just business." just before a whack is spot on accurate.
If I'd have been you, I'd have been very tempted to spend the $4.99, and make it obvious that I had nail clippers to the security guys.
I'm a man after your own heart; I briefly considered and then immediately rejected this idea. My prostate refused to let me go forward with it, perhaps because I was at LAX instead of Helsinki, which, I imagine, welcomes taunting of their "security" personnel. Here in the states, they violate you unspeakably for stuff like that.
It can be tricky for me to keep a level head when something I used to do on a weekly basis with no guilt gets called "unethical", and I missed a few things here and there in my righteous fury.
I have realized where the disconnect is; the things I used to do were sanctioned by both my company and my client's company, and gifts and travel had a strict value cap, and were expected to be used when appropriate. More often than not, gifts would consist of a nice dinner, or, as stated, bringing them to our offices, though every once in a while I'd fly to them on their dime, which was pretty iffy since I only speak English.
Dealing so heavily with Japanese and Korean companies, and later on, Chinese companies, truly was one of the most fulfilling business times of my life; it is utterly amazing how different things can be - for instance, the Korean bosses would have their young women hold doors open for them; it was SUPER awkward when I tried to hold the door for her, first, remembering what me mum taught me. Still, much is very much the same, and yes, when ethical boundaries get blurred, you must do your best to hold to your own personal code first, your company's second, and your client's a distant third. Good salesfolks are prepared for this going in.
That's fair. It's the point I missed; it is definitely a bribe to offer the representative a "personal solid" (as in, fly a dude's family to DisneyWorld) in exchange for his ability to coerce the company's co-operation versus offering the company a "corporate solid" (as in flying their representative to my headquarters in Orlando).
I guess what makes the difference, to me, is whether both companies are aware of and have sanctioned the "solid", and whether it is a vehicle to move business forward. The "personal solid" is very, very easy to figure out (so easy that I wasn't even thinking in these terms, for which I apologize), and shouldn't be done, as you point out. The "corporate solid" isn't necessarily so cut and dry.
It can be a pretty fine line between business meetings and catering to strip clubs and steakhouses, and even then, some corporations welcome that type of "solid" for their head honchos. Many of my past business associates loved talking business over sushi and saki (or bulgogi and soju), and if you're the one selling, it's an unspoken agreement that you'll pick up the tab. That is not a bribe, but a cost of doing business with certain cultures that simply needs to be accounted for, if you expect to be taken seriously.
As for cultures that expect to have a *personal* bribe stuffed in their front shirt, well, I'd politely try to find out what is expected of me as a sales person, and if the dude's boss and/or my boss don't sanction the gift, it doesn't happen. A business gift is actually a sanctioned bribe, from a very cynical viewpoint. Regardless, the gift shouldn't ever be worth more than a nice dinner (i.e. couple hundred US dollars at the maximum); this is why most corporations have upper limits on how much value a gift can have and still be accepted.
I guess the closest real-life equivalent I can think of are public figures like Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly, who do often get called on their shit, but say it anyway. I think that the Rev's, also, get called out on their shit, but they have more public momentum right now. I don't think it's a matter of who's side is right (they're both pretty damn nutjob to me) but one of where the public opinion will land the hardest.
Good call. I'd be interested to know what the crime rate and conviction rate of all demographics at various levels of income are. That's a far more interesting statistic, and one we can actually do something about.
The issue I have with that statement is that it really has nothing to with Juan Williams' personal view on the matter. As a professional pundit, the only possible reason for him to come out and say something like this is to excuse this type of behavior as normal. Agreed, we're missing context here, but nobody really cares what behavior Juan exhibits on a plane, but all of his fans care which behavior Juan thinks is appropriate to exhibit on a plane. Yet another way to say "it's ok to feel that way, most people (like me!) do too."
Fuck that, it's NOT ok, and dressing it up by saying "I'm not a bigot" and "I get nervous [when Muslims identify themselves as Muslim]" really shouldn't be fooling anybody. If you're nervous about Muslims, or black guys, or the Irish, or the Canadians, then it's your job to talk to the ones you meet so you realize that people are people and assholes are assholes. You'll find some of the second in some of the first no matter what demographic you're dealing with.. What sort of ego do we all have to think we're important enough to be the target of every single person that happens to be in one of a great many demographics?
I think that while your take on Juan's comment IS a bit pedantic, it's also very important to show the distinction between bigoted and racist, just as it's important to distinguish between the various different types of cancer.
If anything, those scary Muslims probably have a LOT to talk about regarding cultural differences. I'm sure many Muslims would appreciate the hell out of being approached all friendly-like without getting the "zomg beard-bomber!" look, and if they don't, well, not wanting to be your friend isn't unique to the Muslim culture, last I checked. I sincerely doubt that your attempt at conversation will be what tips the scale toward "That's it, I'm bombing this bitch with my standard-issue Muslim explosive device.", so learn to treat people like people.
I suppose it depends on how the bribe was requested and subsequently turned down. Option 1 and option 3 are not mutually exclusive (unless you turned down the bribe in such a fashion you've already lost business, in which case you're a poor negotiator).
For a less corporate-y example, I deal with situations all the time where someone wants me to make them free prints as "samples" before they'll purchase from me. They've seen my work, they don't need samples of it to know it's good. Rather than give them a whole bunch of free work, which is unethical (even if only to myself and my other small list of clients) I'll offer to show them around my shop, watching other work get done, and perhaps take them to lunch to discuss bulk rates etc.
I don't see this as being unethical in any way, and I also don't see it being a problem for corporate America, so long as the boss in question is authorized to do it. I still don't get why offering option #3 as an alternative to a cash bribe is wrong, especially if it's an established practice for the company (and, in my experience, I've not worked for a company where it wasn't).
Hell, one of my old co-workers used to smuggle weed and smoke his clients out in his hotel room prior to selling them our software; THAT was unethical. Flying them over from China? Every day business. Maybe I should be arguing from the standpoint of "turning down a bribe appropriately and cleverly, and/or offering company-sanctioned non-bribe alternatives is a valid and very successful 4th option".
Very well written, thank you. I'll bow to your better judgement (at least I know when I'm beat). Not that you need my permission, but you can go ahead and not suffer me gladly.
Of course you are. But you're missing the point. Spending money to accomplish business-related activities (the specific example given is flying the client to Orlando to meet with you) isn't unethical in the first place.
Apparently I should have argued with my mod points instead of my words, for this is NOT going well. (new sig? hmm)
Sadly your links do not help me, for I must be retarded. Can you try again, this time explaining, with very small words, what concepts you are referring to, and how they bolster your argument that the two concepts were not being compared? Bonus points if you can directly refute the arguments I have given in support of my conclusion that they are (I'll even reiterate them for you below) without insulting me again (this may be difficult for you; but I'll get it out of the way up front: remember, I am a retarded and self-absorbed dick that needs practice talking to people).
As said self-absorbed dick (note that I'm just giving you that one, although you didn't really explain why this is true, either. I gather it's just a fun name to call people who have ever engaged in any type of sales), I would like you to teach me, oh master of the internet, how attacking my position on the ethical discussion of paying for business-related activities (such as flying a potential client to my office, and even extending that to business lunches or a round of golf) by bringing murdered orphans into the discussion is:
a) not a direct comparison by asking me "if you're ok with doing one small bad thing, would you also be ok with doing one huge bad thing?", and
b) conducive to the discussion I was trying to have in the first place without completely ignoring my argument, which is that flying the client to my office is NOT unethical in the first place?
Murdered orphans is a super powerful phrase that can win many arguments (especially those relating to murdered orphans, because, duh), but I think you and your buddy need to use it more responsibly by providing a proper argumentative support structure and tying it in a little better to the discussion at hand. Otherwise, shit goes all pear-shaped as people begin to randomly ask questions like "Are you going to LET THE ORPHANS DIE by not buying all your turkey from Safeway on Tuesdays?" to "win" arguments about The Year of the Linux Desktop! (WTF, right?). In so doing, you zoom right past discussing the original discussion point, and waste everybody's time so you can pretend you're superior. Nazis shouldn't be the only aspect of Godwin's law.
Well, yes, I agree with this completely, and for the very reasons you point out, option 2 is a horrible and just plain wrong solution. My point was simply that I don't see anything unethical about flying a client (and his family) to meet with me in the first place, any more than I see a trip to the golf course or a business lunch as unethical. I've been on both sides of that particular "bribe" and I've said "no" just as often as I've said "yes" on both sides of the table (sadly, my clients typically say "no" too often for my tastes, but that's life).
I don't see how it's even in the same realm as a bribe, which, to me, would consist of giving someone cash or some other un-related gift in order to secure their business outright.
Nah, not really what I was trying to say here. I'm actually more on your side with this; the point I was trying to make is that all the folks saying "Option 1, cut and dry!" aren't really thinking the situation through. They are ignoring the many reasons to want to fly a client to your location, and there are also plenty of reasons to fly yourself out and see them (you just pointed out several great reasons for doing both).
It's less about a cultural pissing contest and more about establishing a relationship to facilitate discussions about "this is how we do task A here, how do you do it there?" One of my most fond memories was working with a friend from China, who generally had the same value systems that I do. It was mind-boggling, though, on the things that were different. Same with another friend from Israel; odd to do business when you had to figure out how to keep your goods from passing through red zones (which sometimes included my boss!).
I guess I just don't get the rabid venom people using to attack jellomizer's third option; it seems a pretty regular thing to do from what I've seen.
How are the two NOT being compared? The GP's question, rephrased: "Offering bribes is unethical, but you're willing to do it for cultural reasons. Well, what if murdering orphans was a cultural tradition. Would you do it then?" For fuck's sake, YOU compared the two by basically asking "Since your job requires offering bribes, if your job required orphan killing would you ALSO be ok with MURDERING ORPHANS, you scum?"
But whatever, I'm obviously in the minority here, and I'm getting more pissed off than it's worth. I'll keep taking my clients to lunch to keep my little shop running, and hope my competitors agree with all you dumbasses.
*happy. Damn.
Well you, sir, are obviously happen with what your naughty bits look like. Good for you! The rest of us supervisors are terrified.
Maybe I totally missed what's wrong with Option 3 then. Sure, it seemed packaged to resemble a hidden bribe, but flying foreign contacts into the country to conduct business happens near-daily at all the companies I've worked for that have a foreign presence. By your logic, fronting the cash to set up a video-conference is just as unethical. Perhaps the offer to bring the family with is the issue people are making, but I don't see how it's any worse; having the client's family see the local area facilitates easier trips in the future. If a company offered to fly you and your family out to China to discuss a very lucrative offer for your latest software creation, would you turn down the trip and the business? No, because in only the most asinine thought-bubble is this even CLOSE to the same thing as a cash bribe.
Your comparison of flying my new Chinese buddy out here so the board and I can chat with him about the direction we're taking the semiconductor division over the next 4 years to murdering orphans is stupid as hell. Also, it's not about "making more money" it's about doing your fuckin job, which, in sales, is to make and maintain as many relationships as you can. Even outside the business world, a friendship that isn't maintained is lost. Not getting this simple fucking point is why we in IT harbor such contempt for sales people; they're working just as hard as we are, and while, admittedly, many of these folks get into a gray area ethically, the vast majority are just trying to follow the rules and do a good job, just like us.
You had me right up until Whiny Liberal Activists.
Option 3 happens all day, erry day, in the business world, and the only time anybody actually complains is when the "gift" becomes fur coats, stock options, straight up cash, etc. In your example, Option 3 actually had value from a business standpoint, in that the client gets to see your facilities, staff, meet you in person, etc. It is simply a way to cover all the bases, get the client into your sphere of influence, and attempt to show him the value of buying your product. Throwing fur coats or cash at a potential client is nothing more than an attempt to pay him to buy from you (literal bribe). This is one reason a golf course is such a powerful place to conduct business. The difference is on a personal level, and while it's subtle to some people, it's most definitely there.
If you've ever paid for a lunch for your friends, family, girlfriend, etc to talk about something important, you've done the same thing. By offering to pay for lunch at your favorite restaurant, you're bringing them further into your social circle, strengthening the relationship, and providing a comfortable place for the discussion to unfold. It's FAR different from, say, mailing $300 cash and a proposal note to your girlfriend (by the way, if this actually works, you should hit the eject button. Just sayin.)
Option 1 is not necessarily the best answer. It could be argued that Option 1 is the worst answer, ethically, because you're not even trying to come up with a solution for all parties involved (including yourself); you're simply avoiding deeper thought about the decision to help only yourself.
Option 3 seems like the best compromise, all around, and if the company is willing to bring the client and family out for a visit (which happens all the time), the option of showing him OUR culture opens up. This seems like the best ethical decision, long-term, because you have a better chance, over time, of teaching said client how business is done ethically in the US, just as he has a chance to teach you more about his own culture does business. Without this type of compromise on a broad scale, what you're suggesting leads to a breakdown of international trade.
The point is, just because you say "Option 1 is the correct answer" without providing support for your argument doesn't make it so, and there are hundreds of permutations that should be considered in situations like this. It's not as easy as you make it sound, nor are the "businesspeople" all a bunch of greedy douchebags bribing their way to the top to make a quick buck (most, maybe, but not all. =)
It's really not as cut and dry as listing out the romance options like that; in this case the backstory has LOADS to do with the characters in questions.
As it stands, I think there's 3 homosexual options for a female Shepard (Liara, Allers, and Traynor) and 2 homosexual options for male Shepard (Cortez and Kalenko). The nature of Asari reproduction arguably puts Liara into her own unique category.
Lastly, I think there is a total of 6 heterosexual characters in the game (Ashley, Tali, Jack and Miranda for male characters; Jacob and Garrus for female characters), and Jack, Miranda, and Jacob can only be courted if you also courted them in Mass Effect 2 and imported the save.
Every single one of my gay friends' agendas look somewhat like this:
Get HapSlappy drunk as FUCK because he tips HUGE when he's wasted, and we are all bartenders.
I don't pretend to know what all gay folks want to accomplish in life, but I've got the gay bartender in SLC agenda figured right the hell out. Interestingly, the straight bartender agenda is ass-poundingly similar...
You are very well spoken, and it's always nice to disagree with someone who speaks well and not rudely, so thank you for that.
:).
I've always taken issue with the argument for "hate the sin and love the sinner". There's an implicit judgement being made in that statement, with an attempt to deflect that judgement somewhat by pre-emptively promising love, regardless, and implying forgiveness once the "sin" stops. The phrase sounds pretty great on the surface, but even in Christian terms, it's God that should do the judging, never us, meaning the true form of the phrase should simply read "Love thy neighbor" (where have I heard that before....
It feels especially egregious to say "hate the sin, love the sinner" in regards to homosexuality, because you are essentially saying: "You do know that the life-changing and terrifying character trait that you spent years (sometimes decades) recognizing, agonizing over, overcoming fear of, accepting, and finally practicing, in a society that often doesn't accept you, is actually a horrible sin, right? It's ok though because I'll still love you even though God loathes that what you're doing makes you happy! Hugz!"
This really does feel like an awfully presumptive statement to make, and it's really no wonder that homosexual folks often feel misunderstood and frustrated by those that actually do have pretty good intentions. It's a sticky situation for a Christian to be in, and this very subject is actually why I'm no longer Christian. Homosexuality is so central to who and what a person is that you really cannot separate the "sin" from the person, any more than you can other traits like "is athletic" or "likes to run" or (admittedly, this last one is my researched opinion) "has blue eyes". You also cannot decide that the behavior isn't a sin, as it has been commanded by God as such, but something has to give; the middle ground doesn't exist on this one.
Here's an interesting tidbit: One thing my old church did was establish gay organizational units, but forbade homosexual contact of a sexual nature. In so doing, the church admitted that the homosexual character trait exists, but did not go so far as permitting these men to express it physically. Many of these men are married with a kid or two, in extreme cases by in vitro impregnation, but haven't actually had sex with their wives in decades, if ever, because they feel "wrong" when attempting it, and only really feet comfortable physically around men like themselves. Most are able to resist their "urges" because their god commanded them to, though the bishop did have to give dis-fellowships to those that could not. Regardless, these men are still unable to find themselves attracted to their wives or women in general in the same sexual way as to their compatriots.
Quite frankly, this seems like a hideous torture to put someone through, and one that my codified beliefs couldn't withstand. I left my church shortly after I watched the church-produced documentary, which was intended to be instructional for church leaders. I don't pretend to know God's plan, but I feel it in my bones that wasn't part of it.
Hmm. I guess I agree with you in principle about special treatment, but unless a group of people does get vocal and demands they be noticed, they won't get what they want.
As far as gay sex being nasty (or fat sex, or even chocolate ice cream)... well, frankly, it's YOUR head filling itself with nasty images, man. Being gay isn't about sex; it's about who you're attracted to and which gender provides more companionship to you. The only people bringing the gay sex into the situation are the people who don't like the gay sex.
Perhaps you should figure out why you think about the sex that gay, fat, or chocolate ice cream flavored people have when you see them in the first place? Problem solved. In any case, just because you think it's gross doesn't mean it's a sin, or that it's as wrong as a random punch in the face.
1)The point of laws are not really to create the maximum amount of fairness or happiness. ...
2)Someone might have the opinion that men are genetically made to fill one role and women another so the laws should enforce that/discourage feminism from actually hurting women (as an anarchist I would have to strongly disagree with laws enforcing this type of stuff, but as someone very much interested in genetics and evolution would say that the idea should not be dismissed as religious bullshit).
3)Just like freeing the slaves hurt slave owners, freeing the women made men lose power.
You, sir, are very clever with these three arguments, and I want you to know that I see what you did there. Sometimes I forget that people actually do base their beliefs on these types of arguments, and I cannot afford to dismiss that fact since there are so many who do.
There is one problem, though; those laws you cited are only enforceable when there's evidence of a crime. While I don't really agree, there are actually valid arguments against pot (gateway drug? Pfft whatever... but at least I sort of understand the argument) and bestiality (the animal has no way to consent, so it should/could really be considered animal cruelty, even in private. I suppose that if the animal *could* provide proper consent the way a human partner could, then sure, have at, so long as it's in private so as not to be considered an obscene act by the public, but sorry, boys, that's just not looking like it's gonna be possible. Until your dog is smart enough to learn shakespeare and calculus, you really shouldn't screw it. The fact that it's gross to think about is a side-note and should have no bearing on the laws on bestiality, until it happens in public, at which point, sure, call it obscene. The act can be obscene, but you can't yell at ME because you're thinking about the act. In any case, bestiality is not even in the same realm as two consenting adults behaving however they want in private).
;). I can also guarantee that some of the most vocal heterosexual couples engage in some seriously freaky shit in private that would make even the icky gays cry if they witnessed it, so it's an utterly stupid argument altogether (I believe, from your presentation, that you actually agree with me, in principle, so thanks for that).
Even with with polygamy it *could* be argued that it's harmful to the families involved (although I'm one to say if a man wants that level of misery, so be it and good luck, bro). A gay marriage doesn't even have that to hold against it, unless you think actually being gay is itself harmful to the people or their friends/family in some way, to which I say "Prove it without using the bible.". In any case, it's not illegal (or at least en-forcibly illegal) to swear or get a blowjob or do it doggy-style or watch porn except where someone can see or hear you; and I'll even grant that a detailed description of the act in public is borderline obscene.
But, even delving into obscenity laws, the supporters of these types of laws are basically saying that in their imaginations, gay folks are always obscene, so being gay and married isn't the same as being straight an married, so, ever-so-logically, no insurance for the yuckies!!!! Would it be "obscene" for me to say "I sometimes swear when I hit my thumb with a hammer."? Of course not; I didn't go into any sort of graphic detail in any way. What if I instead say "My boyfriend and I got married a few years ago, and we would like to have all the benefits that other married couples get."? If this offends you, you should really be rooting the icky out of your own imagination instead of blaming me.
What's stupid about that is it's a totally subjective complaint, anyway; some people are offended if I kiss my girlfriend (much as I argue for gay rights, sadly, I'm not fabulous! in real life) in public, while others would offer to pay us to get naked (she'd get paid, like, WAY more than me. She's hot and also may be reading this later
The way to draw the line is to do so between public life and private life. Realistically, a gay marriage has no more to do with sex or obscenity than a heterosexual marriage; the straight folks don't need to prove they fuck no more than 3 times a week, missionary only (no icky stuff, you!), and only for procreation purposes, in order to get on a family medical plan, and neither should homosexual couples. It's a completely irrelevant issue.
True, far too many people support this type of idiocy from a position bereft of logic, but the only way to start peeling supporters away is to explain that what they are supporting, and, hence, combating, isn't what they think it is. The "obscenity" is tangential to the argument, at best.