[jolepp]

'Profit' in itself is an accounting concept and as such amoral, as long as the concepts of 'money' and 'business' exist in a recognizable form, 'profit' must also exist, therefore: ask not whether profit in itself is immoral - ask what a fair cut for the Politburo is.

[edit: The above hinges on the subtle difference between 'amoral' and 'immoral'. Strictly speaking making a profit just means getting more money from doing something than the cost of doing it was. The moral of making a profit cannot be considered without a context: one needs to ask what was done to make a profit and what the consequences of that were.

The politburo reference was intented to point out analogy between the now defunct soviet system and the prevailing 'capitalist' one: in both systems power is concentrated to an elite who are better off than the average citizen. The core problem with the soviet system was that there was there was no effective recourse in case the deal the elite cut among themselves was manifestly unfair ... ]

---

Last edited by jolepp; 12-14-2011 at 01:21 PM. Reason: + clarification

[GeneV]

The more I have read on this incident, the more annoyed I am at Lowe's. There was no groundswell of opposition across the nation or massive boycott to hurt profits. This was pretty much a few misguided evangelical groups who claimed this show did not accurately describe "Islam" because it did not show radicals--which are mainly outside the U.S. and thus not "American" Muslims. By this logic, one could not profile ordinary working Christians without highlighting all the Christian nutcases and the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity.

BTW, the market did not seem to think this was a good move for the profits at Lowes. The stock took a dive after the news starting Friday. Lowe's Cos., LOW Stock Quote - (NYSE) LOW, Lowe's Cos. Stock Price

[séamuis]

The more I have read on this incident, the more annoyed I am at Lowe's. There was no groundswell of opposition across the nation or massive boycott to hurt profits. This was pretty much a few misguided evangelical groups who claimed this show did not accurately describe "Islam" because it did not show radicals--which are mainly outside the U.S. and thus not "American" Muslims. By this logic, one could not profile ordinary working Christians without highlighting all the Christian nutcases and the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity.

BTW, the market did not seem to think this was a good move for the profits at Lowes. The stock took a dive after the news starting Friday. Lowe's Cos., LOW Stock Quote - (NYSE) LOW, Lowe's Cos. Stock Price

I have been reading on it as well, in particular the stance that the most outspoken group has taken, the 'FFA' (not to be confused with the other FFA) and their webpage reads like a christian extremists wet dream. the fact that a national corp. like Lowe's would make a move like this, is to be honest just disgusting. I think a lot of people probably saw John Stewarts piece on it, and I think he hit the nail on the head. "we should stand against this show because it shows that not all muslims are terrorists'? I mean, what backwards logic does one need to possess to see this as some sort of threat lurking in the shadows? if anything, christians should be supporting this show, and upholding to christian values, but instead they let extremists speak for and represent them, and give the american people who are not christians, all the reasons they need to further distance themselves from both christianity and religion in general. the 'war on christianity' in the country (oh how we love to declare war on anything that we don't understand) is a war they are fighting against themselves. the rest of the nation are sitting back and watching the show.

I defend Lowe's right to do as they please with their public image, etc. but I have made a decision to never shop there again. I won't support a business that in any way promotes the type of close mindedness and ignorance that has been shown.

[MRRiley]

Seamuis,

What about "Bank of America, Campbell Soup Co., Dell, Estee Lauder, General Motors, Goodyear, Green Mountain Coffee, McDonalds, Sears, and Walmart" all of which were listed by FFA as pulling advertising from the show. Not fair to single Lowes out when they were just part of a crowd.

Mike

[eddie1960]

Seamuis,

What about "Bank of America, Campbell Soup Co., Dell, Estee Lauder, General Motors, Goodyear, Green Mountain Coffee, McDonalds, Sears, and Walmart" all of which were listed by FFA as pulling advertising from the show. Not fair to single Lowes out when they were just part of a crowd.

Mike

You're right of course it's not fair to single out the one. I don't buy from any of the listed in any case and don't shop lowes either (I shop a Canadian Hardware company Rona, or my local small guy who I can walk to)
This is just another reason not to shop them if you ask me (I really didn't need another reason to not shop walmart but hey i'll add it to the list)

[séamuis]

Seamuis,

What about "Bank of America, Campbell Soup Co., Dell, Estee Lauder, General Motors, Goodyear, Green Mountain Coffee, McDonalds, Sears, and Walmart" all of which were listed by FFA as pulling advertising from the show. Not fair to single Lowes out when they were just part of a crowd.

Mike

you may make of it what you will in this consumerist society, but the actual truth is, I don't presently give any money directly to any of the listed corporations. not even campbells soup (that I a aware of) however, I do get your point, and while I agree, I think we both know that boycotting every corp. that made the same move, would be rather difficult. in my case Lowe's is the corp. that I gave the most money to directly before this, thus it would be prudent of me to eliminate that in protest.

I don't use BoA, don't eat soup from a can, don't use dell computers, don't wear makeup, I have a bicycle, a Vespa scooter (stereotype me as you please over that one ), and an old VW but no GM vehicle, I hate coffee, don't eat fast food, don't shop at either sears or wal-mart anymore. but I did shop at lowe's often as there is one much closer than home depot.

since Lowe's is being used as the main point of protest, I will support such actions against them, if it helps bring attention to the need to end such bigoted ideals from this nation, then just as they chose to make their stance I make mine. you may see it as unfairly pointing the finger while ignoring others, but sometimes it helps to concentrate on one to help spread the message.

[GibbyTheMole]

Muslim extremist terrorists = all Muslims are terrorists.
"Christians" Jim Jones/David Koresh /Fred Phelps = all Christians are Jim Jones/David Koresh/Fred Phelps nutjobs.

Makes perfect sense, no?

[jolepp]

You're right of course it's not fair to single out the one. ...

It could be an effective pragmatic strategy for consumers though ("divide and conquer" ). Moreover, there would seem to be a symmetry, perhaps amounting to a kind of poetic justice: single out a corporation on arbitrary grounds that singled out a group of people on arbitrary grounds (?).

[Wheatfield]

Not sure if this fits, but there is also the possibility of tacit approval at play.
If I see racism, sexism, or any of the other isms that we dissaprove of and don't speak out against it, I am tacitly approving of the ism at play.
These companies would have done better to make a public display of telling the Christian whack jobs to piss off than to kow tow to their racist agenda.
Instead, they come off looking like they agree with the nut bars.

[Parallax]

These companies would have done better to make a public display of telling the Christian whack jobs to piss off

If Lowe's had done that, it would have generated more revenue than any ad campaign they have ever had, or will have.

[eddie1960]

If Lowe's had done that, it would have generated more revenue than any ad campaign they have ever had, or will have.

Shame a lot of companies don't understand that

[boriscleto]

Seamuis,

What about "Bank of America, Campbell Soup Co., Dell, Estee Lauder, General Motors, Goodyear, Green Mountain Coffee, McDonalds, Sears, and Walmart" all of which were listed by FFA as pulling advertising from the show. Not fair to single Lowes out when they were just part of a crowd.

Mike

How many of the above actually advertised with the show? Boycott groups have a long history of listing advertisers who never actually advertised with the target.

As for the list... I drive a Honda, my next set of tires won't be from Goodyear (the set I have now suck), I don't eat salt from a can or fast food, I don't drink coffee, I don't wear makeup, I bank with a bank that isn't "Too big to fail", I don't shop at Sears or Walmart and I'm a Mac user.

[séamuis]

I just find it all very disturbing seeing religious extremists attacking decent hard working american citizens because they aren't religious extremists. I won't apologize if I offend any christians here, because I'm only speaking what I feel to be the truth, but I will say that I understand full well that not every christian is this way. but the honest truth is, that I am far more afraid of christian extremists than I have ever been of muslim extremists pre and post 9/11. as far as I'm concerned, they pose a threat to this nation on a level that muslim extremists could only dream of. and when the extremists are 'attacked' for their extreme views they cry that war has been declared upon them. its all like circus side show. if the western idea of god is real, and there is a heaven and hell, I'm certain a majority of 'christians' in the country won't be meeting the pearly gates.

[les3547]

It could be an effective pragmatic strategy for consumers though ("divide and conquer" ). Moreover, there would seem to be a symmetry, perhaps amounting to a kind of poetic justice: single out a corporation on arbitrary grounds that singled out a group of people on arbitrary grounds (?).

Yes, and along those lines, a recommended communication strategy for making a point is to single out either a hero or a villain with whom an example can easily made. Lowe's made the news, for whatever reason, and so they instantly became an excellent candidate to symbolize a despicable practice that needed to be brought to light. After using one example to raise public awareness, then others can more easily be targeted for criticism.

[johnmflores]

'Profit' in itself is an accounting concept and as such amoral, as long as the concepts of 'money' and 'business' exist in a recognizable form, 'profit' must also exist, therefore: ask not whether profit in itself is immoral - ask what a fair cut for the Politburo is.

LOL. My take is that large corporations are amoral entities; they exist to make profits. That's ok with me. It's the responsibility of consumers, individually and collectively as citizens actively engaged in government to set ethical, moral, and environmental bounds for the corporations to operate within. It's the failure of the last part (corporations with more influence than citizens in setting bounds) that's put us where we are now, economically and environmentally speaking.

So Lowe's is well within its right to advertise or not advertise on the show, as it's perfectly fine for people to choose to shop there or not shop there because of that decision. I for one hope that more people choose not to shop there or consider other alternatives as a result of this. Just because corporations are amoral does not mean people should be as well.