The Daily Mail

Bones

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="570597" data-time="1460090717">because angles</blockquote>
That's what she/he said.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="570584" data-time="1460088926">
<div>
the only question here is, is she hot?
 
And why did he complain, did she use too much teeth? ignored the balls? too much butt touching?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Do you mean "Hamilton hot" or actually hot, there is a difference.
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3526198/Utah-teacher-sex-three-students-blames-parents-saying-strained-relationships-boys-defends-risque-clothing-jail.html'>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3526198/Utah-teacher-sex-three-students-blames-parents-saying-strained-relationships-boys-defends-risque-clothing-jail.html</a>

gollum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="570607" data-time="1460093122">
<div>
Do you mean "Hamilton hot" or actually hot, there is a difference.
</div>
</blockquote>
She's got a Mooloo jersey tied round her "waist" to hide the size of her arse, but its a large jersey, not an XL?
 
And she has teeth.
 
Most of them anyway.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="570782" data-time="1460107005">
<div>
She's got a Mooloo jersey tied round her "waist" to hide the size of her arse, but its a large jersey, not an XL?
 
And she has teeth.
 
Most of them anyway.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
"Hey babe, nice tooth".

MajorRage

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="570595" data-time="1460090541">
<div>
That's a bit odd...I didn't know you were allowed to fly without any ID whatsoever. It seems to say you can't in the article, this person had no ID...I'm not sure where the issue is and what it had to do with being transgender?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yes, played the transgender angle because the person checking in said details didn't match up.
 
I just find this grey area interesting, none more so than in North Carolina.

Baron Silas Greenback

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="571570" data-time="1460352396">
<div>
Yes, played the transgender angle because the person checking in said details didn't match up.
 
I just find this grey area interesting, none more so than in North Carolina.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
That is just a beat up. Paypal has stopped construction of its new facilities in North Carolina in protest about people being forced to use the toilets of the gender on their birth certificate. .... yet still do active business in 25 countries with the death penalty for homosexuality...

gollum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="571576" data-time="1460355690">
<div>
That is just a beat up. Paypal has stopped construction of its new facilities in North Carolina in protest about people being forced to use the toilets of the gender on their birth certificate. .... yet still do active business in 25 countries with the death penalty for homosexuality...
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I sort of feel OK with that. They can directly influence US policy, the US is their "home" territory, and by protesting it they have a real chance to change the law & do zero damage to their shareholders.
 
If they were to pull their business from Saudi as a protest it'd do what? Nothing bar cut their shareholder return.
 
Companies - and people, should be picking the fights they can win & make a difference in. All the major hollywood studios just did exactly this in Georgia over anti-gay legistation, yet they'll still shoot in Tunisia or Morocco. And they are now aiming at NC
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/georgia-anti-gay-boycott-veto'>http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/georgia-anti-gay-boycott-veto</a>
 
If you wanted western companies to stop doing business with any country that didn't meet our standards the world would stop. Ditto the idea they can't hold their own government - who they directly fund with taxes to account, is stupid
 
And most of all Paypal has sex equality rules built into its corporate culture & staff contacts, so asking staff to work in a state that violates that is an issue. You can't say "we are gay friendly so long as you stay in California". They don't have offices in Kuwait.

Baron Silas Greenback

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="571603" data-time="1460366667">
<div>
I sort of feel OK with that. They can directly influence US policy, the US is their "home" territory, and by protesting it they have a real chance to change the law & do zero damage to their shareholders.
 
If they were to pull their business from Saudi as a protest it'd do what? Nothing bar cut their shareholder return.
 
Companies - and people, should be picking the fights they can win & make a difference in. All the major hollywood studios just did exactly this in Georgia over anti-gay legistation, yet they'll still shoot in Tunisia or Morocco. And they are now aiming at NC
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/georgia-anti-gay-boycott-veto'>http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/georgia-anti-gay-boycott-veto</a>
 
If you wanted western companies to stop doing business with any country that didn't meet our standards the world would stop. Ditto the idea they can't hold their own government - who they directly fund with taxes to account, is stupid
 
And most of all Paypal has sex equality rules built into its corporate culture & staff contacts, so asking staff to work in a state that violates that is an issue. You can't say "we are gay friendly so long as you stay in California". They don't have offices in Kuwait.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I have a problem with it as if you follow your line of reason to its logical conclusion. Then businesses should not do anything to damage shareholders profits. And I think that there is strong support for North Carolina's move amongst more conservative voters.
If Paypal are concerned about shareholders, they would not be taking a stance like this. It seems like Paypal are saying .. we take a moral stand unless it effects profits.....
 
And one point to note, how is it anti gay legislation? Is it not it more anti transgender/transsexual? i.e for public toilets you have to use the gender on your birth certificate? Also I assume you meant sexuality equality? But even so my understanding is that none of the proposed laws actually broke Paypals rules?
 
Regardless I think Paypal coming out looking like hypocrites. Do they care about equality.. up until it severely effects profits?
 
Just a constant amazement to me how so called gay friendly companies do absolutely nothing to push gay freedoms (from death) in foriegn countries... why? because it is to expensive? 
And I am fully aware that I am contradictng myself in some regards. But it shows how dangerous it is for companies to make decisions based on morals.. from only one side of the spectrum.
 
Didnt a firm in the US get absolutely attacked .. and indeed banned from opening any stores in SF because its owners stated they didnt support gay marriage? They were told in no uncertain terms that they had no place bringing their business pressure into the discussion.

Baron Silas Greenback

Found it
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy'>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy</a>

gollum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="571607" data-time="1460368305">
<div>
I have a problem with it as if you follow your line of reason to its logical conclusion. Then businesses should not do anything to damage shareholders profits. And I think that there is strong support for North Carolina's move amongst more conservative voters.
If Paypal are concerned about shareholders, they would not be taking a stance like this. It seems like Paypal are saying .. we take a moral stand unless it effects profits.....
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I think they shouldn't take a pointless moral stance if it damages their shareholders. Also it dependeds on how many stakeholders it affects.
 
So a law in the US that will affect their US employees & that they have a genuine shot at changing, they can balance that duty to employees & the chance of success against any negatives. In contrast they campaign against Saudi law, they have no employees there, and their chance of doing anything is zero. So its literally destroying shareholder value to have a PR wank.
 
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="571607" data-time="1460368305">
<div> 
Just a constant amazement to me how so called gay friendly companies do absolutely nothing to push gay freedoms (from death) in foriegn countries... why? because it is to expensive?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I get your point and yes, I think its because of that. But also because its pointless. If Paypal pulled out of all the "bad" places Ali-Pay would just become the worlds no. 1 payment system & those places would continue being bad. They'd change mnothing.
 
Companies should only flex their morals when the benifits outweigh the costs. If you want crusading companies who happily destroy their own wealth pointlessly you end up with Oxfam.

Rancid Schnitzel

Is this really in the best interests of PayPal's shareholders? Trannies being allowed to use the female dunnies might be huge on Twitter and close to the heart of Bruce Springsteen but I question whether the vast majority of the US gives a shit.

Siam

Brilliant pun Rancid!

gollum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="571658" data-time="1460415243">
<div>
Is this really in the best interests of PayPal's shareholders? Trannies being allowed to use the female dunnies might be huge on Twitter and close to the heart of Bruce Springsteen but I question whether the vast majority of the US gives a shit.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Its more that it is something PayPal can make a moral stand on without hurting their shareholders. Companies do it all the time. Apple is all for human rights, except where it might cut their iPhone margin, or it wants to protect the data of its users, except for when it can commercialise it.
 
My point is more companies should ideally have some morals, but those morals should be at least a wee bit flexible when it adversly affects shareholdere value. Pick your fights & chose the ones you can win & that have the greatest positive affect to your stakeholders.
 
You want to be hugely moral you can be a charity. Or bankrupt. Or just do what Gates did & cash out.

Cookie

It's also something that can generate a lot of free publicity and win customers. I may be a cynic but I think most CSR related stuff is done with commercial interest very much in mind.

gollum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Cookie" data-cid="571752" data-time="1460453077">
<div>
It's also something that can generate a lot of free publicity and win customers. I may be a cynic but I think most CSR related stuff is done with commercial interest very much in mind.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I don't agree in this case, doing nothing would not have meant pro-gay rights people started boycotting them, but doing this will have lost them some anti-tranny folks. Re the hollywood studio boycott that one is about appeasing their core of staff - hollywood is liberal as fuck, but the paypal one nope.

Rancid Schnitzel

But do you think there's any net financial gain to PayPal from this?
 
I'm just guessing now, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was some boycott threat from the SF mob and the twitter warriors. If that's the case then shouldn't they be equally outraged that PP is operating in countries where homosexuality is illegal?

gollum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="571760" data-time="1460459242">
<div>
But do you think there's any net financial gain to PayPal from this?
 
I'm just guessing now, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was some boycott threat from the SF mob and the twitter warriors. If that's the case then shouldn't they be equally outraged that PP is operating in countries where homosexuality is illegal?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
No I don't. And there is zero chance the twitter mob were going to boycott Paypal. There are thousands of companies operating in that state, they have zero reason to specifically target Paypal, anymore than they would boycott Whole Foods or Starbucks for having stores there.
 
If they were going to target companies they would look at campaign contributors in the state and target them. And even there the number of activists who would go to that length is almost zero. No one arm twisted Paypal into doing this. I think they are equally outraged, but that level of outrage is "me'h". 
 
I don't buy the arguement "you shouldn't try to change the things you can because you aren't trying just as much to change the things you can't"

Rancid Schnitzel

Do you think this was something that needed to be changed?

gollum

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="571773" data-time="1460469110">
<div>
Do you think this was something that needed to be changed?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I don't really care, I have given up entirely on the idea that large parts of the US are materially different in terms of bigoted religion driven madness from Iran or Pakistan.
 
But the guys at Paypal clearly did. Hence they tried.

Baron Silas Greenback

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="571775" data-time="1460478768">
<div>
I don't really care, I have given up entirely on the idea that large parts of the US are materially different in terms of bigoted religion driven madness from Iran or Pakistan.
 
But the guys at Paypal clearly did. Hence they tried.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
Hang on..... you are comparing parts of the US for religious bigotry to Iran or Pakistan?
 
Have you been to any of these places, actually experienced them? I have, and I can guarantee they are not remotely similar in religious tolerance fr freedoms.

The Silver Fern

The Daily Mail