Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Starbucks versus troops

ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 11:22:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://highoctanehumor.com...

Do you think Starbucks had/has an obligation to serve the troops abroad? Why or why not?
Is it appropriate for people to band against a company because of its values? The coke commercial is another example.
PiedPiper
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 12:17:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 11:22:01 AM, ben2974 wrote:
http://highoctanehumor.com...

Do you think Starbucks had/has an obligation to serve the troops abroad? Why or why not?
Is it appropriate for people to band against a company because of its values? The coke commercial is another example.

Well it is worth pointing out that this letter isn't accurate. It was a misunderstanding that escalated into a rumor for the last decade.
http://www.snopes.com...

But to answer your question, I don't think any company has any kind of obligation to serve the troops in any way. Sure it might be nice to provide human comforts (after all, support with coffee or candy is an entirely different kind of support for a war than constructing tanks or weapons) but a private company can choose to support or oppose any cause they want.

To answer the second part, it is absolutely appropriate for people to give special support/opposition to a company based on its expressed values. Chik-Fil-A was a great example. People who opposed that company's values (and more to the point, the company's contributions to organizations that furthered those values) boycotted the company which is exactly how one should protest an ideology in a peaceful, civilized way.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 12:59:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 12:17:24 PM, PiedPiper wrote:
At 2/9/2014 11:22:01 AM, ben2974 wrote:
http://highoctanehumor.com...

Do you think Starbucks had/has an obligation to serve the troops abroad? Why or why not?
Is it appropriate for people to band against a company because of its values? The coke commercial is another example.


Well it is worth pointing out that this letter isn't accurate. It was a misunderstanding that escalated into a rumor for the last decade.
http://www.snopes.com...

But to answer your question, I don't think any company has any kind of obligation to serve the troops in any way. Sure it might be nice to provide human comforts (after all, support with coffee or candy is an entirely different kind of support for a war than constructing tanks or weapons) but a private company can choose to support or oppose any cause they want.

To answer the second part, it is absolutely appropriate for people to give special support/opposition to a company based on its expressed values. Chik-Fil-A was a great example. People who opposed that company's values (and more to the point, the company's contributions to organizations that furthered those values) boycotted the company which is exactly how one should protest an ideology in a peaceful, civilized way.

Would you be pissed off if somehow there was enough support that went against a business that provided you with lots of utility, forcing said business to close for good? You enjoyed the products for what they were and you were not involving yourself with what the company reflects beyond its products.

I think my problem is that I think marketing is bs. To be able to attach value to a product that goes beyond what it ACTUALLY provides you with is dumb and seemingly nonsensical.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 1:02:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I forgot to be more specific: the company went under not because of a distaste for the products it sold but for the company itself (their values, etc)
PiedPiper
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 1:19:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 12:59:25 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 2/9/2014 12:17:24 PM, PiedPiper wrote:
At 2/9/2014 11:22:01 AM, ben2974 wrote:
http://highoctanehumor.com...

Do you think Starbucks had/has an obligation to serve the troops abroad? Why or why not?
Is it appropriate for people to band against a company because of its values? The coke commercial is another example.


Well it is worth pointing out that this letter isn't accurate. It was a misunderstanding that escalated into a rumor for the last decade.
http://www.snopes.com...

But to answer your question, I don't think any company has any kind of obligation to serve the troops in any way. Sure it might be nice to provide human comforts (after all, support with coffee or candy is an entirely different kind of support for a war than constructing tanks or weapons) but a private company can choose to support or oppose any cause they want.

To answer the second part, it is absolutely appropriate for people to give special support/opposition to a company based on its expressed values. Chik-Fil-A was a great example. People who opposed that company's values (and more to the point, the company's contributions to organizations that furthered those values) boycotted the company which is exactly how one should protest an ideology in a peaceful, civilized way.


Would you be pissed off if somehow there was enough support that went against a business that provided you with lots of utility, forcing said business to close for good? You enjoyed the products for what they were and you were not involving yourself with what the company reflects beyond its products.

I think my problem is that I think marketing is bs. To be able to attach value to a product that goes beyond what it ACTUALLY provides you with is dumb and seemingly nonsensical.

Of course I'd be upset if, say, my favorite burger joint went out of business for any reason, whether due to it's business, marketing, ideals, or otherwise. But that doesn't mean I'd disagree with others choosing to boycott the business for whatever reason.

I see your point, I felt the same way when I saw a Levi's commercial a few years ago that was very inspirational and patriotic but had nothing to do with jeans. I get why they do it and I think it can be effective to establish an emotional connection with customers, but It's a double edged sword.

To say you are only involved in the company's products and not their values is, I believe, not quite accurate. A friend of mine once found a shirt design online that he really wanted to buy (it had some generic message about family/community) but it was being sold by the KKK. Could he really only buy the product/associate himself with that product (the shirt) without being said to contribute towards the groups overall ideals? Obviously this example is a bit more extreme/loaded than other typical examples but I think the idea remains. Once a company starts expressing certain opinions then customers become, even indirectly/inadvertently/unintentionally, supporters of the opinion as well as the product.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 2:28:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 1:19:41 PM, PiedPiper wrote:
At 2/9/2014 12:59:25 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 2/9/2014 12:17:24 PM, PiedPiper wrote:
At 2/9/2014 11:22:01 AM, ben2974 wrote:
http://highoctanehumor.com...

Do you think Starbucks had/has an obligation to serve the troops abroad? Why or why not?
Is it appropriate for people to band against a company because of its values? The coke commercial is another example.


Well it is worth pointing out that this letter isn't accurate. It was a misunderstanding that escalated into a rumor for the last decade.
http://www.snopes.com...

But to answer your question, I don't think any company has any kind of obligation to serve the troops in any way. Sure it might be nice to provide human comforts (after all, support with coffee or candy is an entirely different kind of support for a war than constructing tanks or weapons) but a private company can choose to support or oppose any cause they want.

To answer the second part, it is absolutely appropriate for people to give special support/opposition to a company based on its expressed values. Chik-Fil-A was a great example. People who opposed that company's values (and more to the point, the company's contributions to organizations that furthered those values) boycotted the company which is exactly how one should protest an ideology in a peaceful, civilized way.


Would you be pissed off if somehow there was enough support that went against a business that provided you with lots of utility, forcing said business to close for good? You enjoyed the products for what they were and you were not involving yourself with what the company reflects beyond its products.

I think my problem is that I think marketing is bs. To be able to attach value to a product that goes beyond what it ACTUALLY provides you with is dumb and seemingly nonsensical.

Of course I'd be upset if, say, my favorite burger joint went out of business for any reason, whether due to it's business, marketing, ideals, or otherwise. But that doesn't mean I'd disagree with others choosing to boycott the business for whatever reason.

I see your point, I felt the same way when I saw a Levi's commercial a few years ago that was very inspirational and patriotic but had nothing to do with jeans. I get why they do it and I think it can be effective to establish an emotional connection with customers, but It's a double edged sword.

To say you are only involved in the company's products and not their values is, I believe, not quite accurate. A friend of mine once found a shirt design online that he really wanted to buy (it had some generic message about family/community) but it was being sold by the KKK. Could he really only buy the product/associate himself with that product (the shirt) without being said to contribute towards the groups overall ideals? Obviously this example is a bit more extreme/loaded than other typical examples but I think the idea remains. Once a company starts expressing certain opinions then customers become, even indirectly/inadvertently/unintentionally, supporters of the opinion as well as the product.

Meh. When I buy a product, this is what I find I'm doing:
* Telling the world that I am consuming their product. I am therefore marketing it to the world by having it.
* I am telling the company that I support what you make, so take my money and make more of it. Make it better. Make something new that I will like. Etc

I don't see why I support the values of a company when I consciously support the product alone. When I say consciously, I mean that I am buying the product for the product. That is my sole purpose of the purchase - to gain utility from the purchase. I could be unaware of the social circumstances. But, I don't see how being unaware of the social circumstances implies that I support the company beyond its product. Even If I knew Chik-fil-A is full of homophobes, i'd still buy their chicken cuz I like their chicken. I might not like what they think but I like their chicken. I pay them not to sprinkle their values around the world but for them to keep making their chicken. I want their chicken! What the company sells takes precedence over what they value.

I understand that people have attached other values to products. I'm just saying that it ought not to be like that.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 11:25:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/9/2014 2:28:46 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 2/9/2014 1:19:41 PM, PiedPiper wrote:
At 2/9/2014 12:59:25 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 2/9/2014 12:17:24 PM, PiedPiper wrote:
At 2/9/2014 11:22:01 AM, ben2974 wrote:
http://highoctanehumor.com...

Do you think Starbucks had/has an obligation to serve the troops abroad? Why or why not?
Is it appropriate for people to band against a company because of its values? The coke commercial is another example.


Well it is worth pointing out that this letter isn't accurate. It was a misunderstanding that escalated into a rumor for the last decade.
http://www.snopes.com...

But to answer your question, I don't think any company has any kind of obligation to serve the troops in any way. Sure it might be nice to provide human comforts (after all, support with coffee or candy is an entirely different kind of support for a war than constructing tanks or weapons) but a private company can choose to support or oppose any cause they want.

To answer the second part, it is absolutely appropriate for people to give special support/opposition to a company based on its expressed values. Chik-Fil-A was a great example. People who opposed that company's values (and more to the point, the company's contributions to organizations that furthered those values) boycotted the company which is exactly how one should protest an ideology in a peaceful, civilized way.


Would you be pissed off if somehow there was enough support that went against a business that provided you with lots of utility, forcing said business to close for good? You enjoyed the products for what they were and you were not involving yourself with what the company reflects beyond its products.

I think my problem is that I think marketing is bs. To be able to attach value to a product that goes beyond what it ACTUALLY provides you with is dumb and seemingly nonsensical.

Of course I'd be upset if, say, my favorite burger joint went out of business for any reason, whether due to it's business, marketing, ideals, or otherwise. But that doesn't mean I'd disagree with others choosing to boycott the business for whatever reason.

I see your point, I felt the same way when I saw a Levi's commercial a few years ago that was very inspirational and patriotic but had nothing to do with jeans. I get why they do it and I think it can be effective to establish an emotional connection with customers, but It's a double edged sword.

To say you are only involved in the company's products and not their values is, I believe, not quite accurate. A friend of mine once found a shirt design online that he really wanted to buy (it had some generic message about family/community) but it was being sold by the KKK. Could he really only buy the product/associate himself with that product (the shirt) without being said to contribute towards the groups overall ideals? Obviously this example is a bit more extreme/loaded than other typical examples but I think the idea remains. Once a company starts expressing certain opinions then customers become, even indirectly/inadvertently/unintentionally, supporters of the opinion as well as the product.

Meh. When I buy a product, this is what I find I'm doing:
* Telling the world that I am consuming their product. I am therefore marketing it to the world by having it.
* I am telling the company that I support what you make, so take my money and make more of it. Make it better. Make something new that I will like. Etc

I don't see why I support the values of a company when I consciously support the product alone. When I say consciously, I mean that I am buying the product for the product. That is my sole purpose of the purchase - to gain utility from the purchase. I could be unaware of the social circumstances. But, I don't see how being unaware of the social circumstances implies that I support the company beyond its product. Even If I knew Chik-fil-A is full of homophobes, i'd still buy their chicken cuz I like their chicken. I might not like what they think but I like their chicken. I pay them not to sprinkle their values around the world but for them to keep making their chicken. I want their chicken! What the company sells takes precedence over what they value.

I understand that people have attached other values to products. I'm just saying that it ought not to be like that.

So if the KKK scouts made tasty cookies, you'd buy them?

I wager there is a point at which a company's values would be so antithetical to yours you wouldn't be willing to patronize them.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 4:35:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is it appropriate for people to band against a company because of its values?

Appropriate isn't the appropriate word for the question. "Can" people band together against a company because of its values? If the answer is YES then there is still some resemblance of freedom. If the answer is NO, then you live in tyranny.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%