🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@koherecoWatchdog

Yes, and i never once responded to "slace dolphins" in the thread, its a tangent I dont want to add onto the list.

@thenewoil @realcaseyrollins

@koherecoWatchdog

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.

@realcaseyrollins @thenewoil

@koherecoWatchdog

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.

@thenewoil @realcaseyrollins

@koherecoWatchdog

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.

@realcaseyrollins @thenewoil

@koherecoWatchdog

I never once claimed that any of those companies were better towards customer privacy than any others. so not relevant.

@thenewoil @realcaseyrollins

@koherecoWatchdog

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

@koherecoWatchdog

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.

@thenewoil @realcaseyrollins

@koherecoWatchdog

I'd say they loose unethical customers.. the customers they loose are making unethical demands not ethical ones.

@realcaseyrollins @thenewoil

@koherecoWatchdog

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.

@thenewoil @realcaseyrollins

@koherecoWatchdog

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)

@realcaseyrollins @thenewoil

@mur2501 maybe leave some food out for him and water?

@tombies@social.tchncs.de

@koherecoWatchdog

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.

@thenewoil @realcaseyrollins

@koherecoWatchdog

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.

@thenewoil @realcaseyrollins

@koherecoWatchdog

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.

@realcaseyrollins @thenewoil

@koherecoWatchdog

Your welcome to use as much power as you'd like. But by the looks of it (by pushing for a ban on FedEx on those grounds) your causing more ethical issues than your solving from my PoV.

@realcaseyrollins @thenewoil

@koherecoWatchdog

I'm not saying its a good way to boycott, but i am showing the failure in your assertion that you cant effect laws in countries you have no voting power, which isnt true.

The other point is, boycotting fedex wont do a damn thing to prevent shark fin import anyway. They arent hurt in anyway to have to use different companies for their shipping, or even to need to provide their own distribution as is quite common. Its wasted energy that wont get you any closer to solving the problem anyway.

@realcaseyrollins @thenewoil

@koherecoWatchdog

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

@koherecoWatchdog

I disagree.. it is not their place for many reasons..

When something is made illegal by law there are proper provisions put in place. For example sharks that are butchered for all their meat, including their fins would be perfectly legal to ship the fins. Similarly farm raised sharks one would expect to be legal even if wild shark fin hunting were illegal.

Therefore if made illegal the government would go through many steps to prosecute someone, they would have to verify the finning was done unethical (as opposed to the ethical sources above) among other things.

FedEx does not have the resources nor should be expected to go off investigating the source of the fins, deciding if they were sustainably harvested, or even what is or is not considered sustainable and ok.

So no, that is not where the solution lies, nor should it, and its absurd to think they should play the role of a police officer and investigate the supply chain and ethics of the things they ship, it is not their place nor should it be.

@thenewoil @realcaseyrollins

@koherecoWatchdog

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.

@realcaseyrollins @thenewoil