🇳🇱
I dont buy things based on what I need... if that were the case i wouldnt be buying a game or fancy shirt in the first place I dont NEED those at all. I can wear a potato sack for a shit and it would meet my **needs**. But I do usually WANT it overnight, because i get excited and I dont enjoy waiting for something im excited about.. may not be a need, but it is what i want, and im the one with the money. Business is all about giving people what they want, if people want it overnight (which is clear they do) and you dont provide it, expect all the business to go to amazon (as it tends to).
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @thenewoil Another ethical issue with the overnight shipping: that usually means UPS or FedEx. FedEx ships shark fins, slave dolphins, and hunting trophies, which is abusive to animals and the environment. FedEx is only limited by what they can get away with, whereas FedEx competitors are relatively more ethical. So I favor USPS. If shipping method is undisclosed, I add a note to the order.
While I am against trophy hunting I also dont feel that is the place or the right of the shipping company to get involved in. In fact in my view there should be legal protection and privacy over the content of my package.
@freemo @thenewoil @realcaseyrollins Is this what you envision: (courier) Is that a dolphin in that box of water sir? (seaworld) No, that's just a heavy box of water, don't worry about it.
@realcaseyrollins @thenewoil @freemo I've seen photos of hundreds of sharkfins getting ready to ship in open crates. When the shark finning happens in a 3rd world country of orgin, they have no need to hide them. FedEx knows they're shipping #sharkfins.
The onus in that case is on the 3rd world country to step up and make it illegal, not on FedEx, thats not their purview nor should it be.
@freemo @thenewoil @realcaseyrollins whether it's banned or not, ethical consumers have a duty too. It's our duty as ethical consumers to boycott wrongdoing.
Sure, I agree. But FedEx are not the ones doing wrong in my view. In fact to ban shipping items that are otherwise legal to ship would be fedex engaging in wrong doing in my view...
So yea by all means boycott shark fins, ill support you, but do it where you should be, at the consumer level and at the government level. Its not the place of a package shipper to do that sort of level of investigation or enforcement.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @thenewoil "to ban shipping items that are otherwise legal to ship would be fedex engaging in wrong doing" <= absolutely profoundly absurd. FedEx has a right to control their own business. They can refuse service. That's how business works. They choose to engage in what's profitable.
Of course they have a right to do it. But as you already pointed out simply having the right to do a thing doesnt make it ethical to do it. It is, in my view, unethical for fedex to play that role regardless of if they have the legal right to do so or not.
@freemo @thenewoil @realcaseyrollins now you've contradicted yourself. First you said FedEx would be "in the wrong" if they don't ship shark fins, now you're back peddling.
How so? I am still saying they are in the wrong if they didnt ship shark fins (assuming they were legal to ship).
"in the wrong" = unethical, and I stand by that..
They have a **right** (they legally can do so) not to ship them, but they are **in the wrong** (it is unethical) not to do so
@thenewoil @realcaseyrollins @freemo Suppose I have a bicycle shop and I sell Brompton's and Schwin bikes, and I choose not to sell Mongoose bikes. Who are you to say I have some kind of duty to sell Mongoose?
Thats not even remotely related to my claim here is.
It would be more akin to a shop owner demanding they strip search every customer that comes in the door and then decide if he likes you or not, and thus will sell to you, based on the contents of your pockets.
While a store owner would have a right to do this, I'd find it unethical as well..
The issue here with the shipping and with the analogy is one of a right for the customers privacy, nothing else.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @thenewoil right, but you're just guessing. You don't know how UPS and USPS are refusing shark fins. Maybe they refuse shippers with the name "Shark Fin Soup Inc."
@thenewoil @realcaseyrollins @freemo FedEx has zero diligence.. you can bring them an open crate of shark fins after cutting them off across the street from their office before throwing the live finless shark back, and fedex is still shipping them. UPS and USPS are doing something to stop it, which doesn't necessarily mean pkg inspection.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @thenewoil Because FedEx is doing nothing, not even a written policy, they lose ethical consumers.
I'd say they loose unethical customers.. the customers they loose are making unethical demands not ethical ones.
@freemo @thenewoil @realcaseyrollins you've failed to substantiate the claim that USPS is abusing privacy. If you produce an article that shows them to be relatively more invasive, that will affect the ethical judgement. You don't even seem to agree with having a written FedEx policy against shark fin shipping, so the privacy argument is just a prop
I never even mentioned USPS why would I have to... my criticism as I said is of your policy to boycott companies that transport shark fin. I made no endorsement or debasement of a specific company.
To repeat my stance is:
It is unethical as it leads to pressure to violate customer privacy, to expect a shipping company to make ethical decisions on the content of the packages being shipped and use that to determine if they will or will not ship a package. Any boycott which adds pressure on companies to violate customer privacy is an unethical position to take.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @thenewoil "I never even mentioned USPS why would I have to" <= you claimed that a boycott on FedEx is a boycott on privacy.. that the other companies must be doing pkg inspections. But it's all speculation on your part. You need to to better than that.
@thenewoil @realcaseyrollins @freemo if you have some shred of proof that FedEx respects privacy more than USPS, UPS, or Airborne Express, I would be interested in seeing it because that is something that I would account for when making an ethical decision.
I never once claimed that any of those companies were better towards customer privacy than any others. so not relevant.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @thenewoil that's right, the privacy claim must be scrapped because until you can actually find a privacy difference, it's irrelevant
@thenewoil @realcaseyrollins @freemo AFAIK, USPS has managed to refuse shark fins without subjecting customers to extra inspection, so USPS is ahead on ethics. Unless, of course, you can find something. I've oversimplified, because usps.com blocks tor and that is privacy abuse, but it's not as serious as shipping slave dolphins for sea world.
That makes no sense. I am evaluating the unethical nature of your boycott not the unethical natures of the company.
The truth is if your going to ban shipping shark fins then that implies a company has a right to knowledge as to the contents of what your shipping in the first place. You can do all the mental gymnastics you want but you arent going to get away form that.
@freemo @thenewoil @realcaseyrollins "I am evaluating the unethical nature of your boycott not the unethical natures of the company." <= bingo, that's the problem. If you neglect FedEx's wrong doing, of course there is no grounds for a boycott. "then that implies a company has a right to knowledge as to the contents of what your shipping in the first place" <= they always have a *right* to know what they're shipping
Exactly you think they should have a right to be able to invade the privacy of their customers, I do not. Thats really the only place we disagree, everything comes from that.
@realcaseyrollins @thenewoil @freemo they have an obligation to not ship cocaine, for example. How they meet their obligation to not ship prohibited items is indeed interesting. All couriers have to work out how to avoid shipping prohibited items (and when I say "prohibited" that's the union of prohibitions by law and by corp policy)
@freemo @thenewoil @realcaseyrollins but until you can show that FedEx is more privacy respecting in how they avoid prohibited shipments, your privacy claim is dead.
@realcaseyrollins @thenewoil @freemo and i'm still interested in hearing how you think FedEx ships dolphins without knowing it's a dolphin.
Huh? We werent talking about dolphins. We were talking about shark fins. Which Are in an opaque box with ice the vast majority of the time and thus unable to be identified without looking inside. Dolphins are an entierly different issue.
No I claimed that a boycott on shipping companies in general that ship shark fins is effectively putting pressure on companies to violate customer privacy, therefore it is an unethical stance.
I never once claimed your boycott on FedEx has in anyway been successful or actually had the intended result.
@realcaseyrollins @thenewoil @freemo A company policy is a simple way for a company to get on the right side of ethics without triggering a privacy issue. FedEx disregards ethics entirely, so they won't even go that far.
Good, as i said its not their place to do diligence on the contents of your package. That is why we have laws and police officers.
It isnt about UPS policies, its about your choice to boycott companies that ship shark fin.
Are you saying your stance is such that if UPS is shipping just as much shark fin as FedEx but just require the company not be named "shark fin soup inc" then you would not boycott them? Obviously that doesnt appear to be your stance. It appears you care that shark fins are being shipped, if they are shipped you boycott them, which implies you expect them to take invasive action to ensure they dont get shipped (as anything else would be ineffective short of changing laws)
Its not about "a company must not refuse any business"... my claim is that people shipping packages have a right to privacy as to what they are shipping. In my view it is unethical for a shipping company to feel they have a right to snoop through my packages in the first place unless they suspect there is something dangerous.
@freemo @thenewoil @realcaseyrollins the privacy issue is a separate issue. Do you have any supporting evidence that UPS gives less privacy than FedEx? Maybe UPS only turns away open crates with fins, but not consealed fins.
I am not advocating people use UPS either, nor am I advocating for or against FedEx.
What I am saying is as a cosumer boycotting a company and demanding they take a position that requires them as a matter of course to violate their customers privacy, and then use that violation to determine if they will black list them or not even when they engage in perfectly legal activities is NOT something that is helping the world. The last thing you should be doing is demanding these companies act in a way that prevents them from honoring their customers privacy.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @thenewoil "I am still saying they are in the wrong if they didnt ship shark fins" <= that's a serious claim.. to claim that a business must not refuse business. It's neither ethical nor is it capitalistic to demand that a business engage in a certain trade. The right to refuse service is important, especially if the service is ethically dubious enough to risk losing business due to boycotts.