Quote:
Originally posted by Christien
I didn't suggest financially (or otherwise) punishing Exxon. What I said is that I don't think they should have any say in school policy or curriculum. (and in fact removing their "donation" would save them money, not cost them) Notwithstanding everything you continued to say about corporations needing a well-educated workforce, the bit I quoted from the article about the NSTA being concerned about losing funding and therefore refusing to show the movie shows Exxon dollars buying influence right there, period. That is what I have a problem with. A huge problem. Plain and simple.
FTR I don't and never would invest in corporations whose policies or actions I disagree with. That only makes sense.
|
Congratulations. I commend your ethical investment posture.
Quote:
I suppose there's no way of knowing this for sure either way, but I find that extremely hard to believe. Ockham's razor and all...
"sound, logical decisions in the face of adversity." require being able to see both sides of the coin, including seeing through propaganda, rhetoric, pseudo-science, etc. In this case, if what you said were true about corporations requiring people who can think that way, the NSTA would actually be in favour of showing Gore's movie, because Exxon would be in favour of it.
|
In seeing your quote of me, I noticed that I mis-typed (although I don't think that it substantially changes my point), what I meant to type was...
... Sound, logical decisions in the face of uncertainty, as in being able decide where to drill a well.
Yes, being able to do this does require looking at both sides of the coin. But I still don't undersand how all of the doubtful science in Gore's movie constitutes looking at the "other side" when the "other side" is not well reasoned or supported by facts. Well intentioned -- yes. Well reasoned -- No.