I'm not sure how you do the multiquote thing when responding so I'll just handle each of them in order below:
When using Chrome on a PC, I just hit the enter key, and it creates a gap between the quotes automatically.
At the most a Pfizer executive admitted to even worse violations of trust than all but the most vaccine hesitant in the population had even imagined.
As I made clear in my dialogue over 10 or so pages, I would expect a vaccine company to test the virus as well as the drug, try and see what mutations it might assume, evaluate vaccine efficacy against these mutations, etc. That is responsible, future-oriented, and keeps an eye to future profits. While I don't trust Pfizer more than any other large corporation, in this particular regard I consider that good corporate citizenship.
There were several hypotheticals in the video that were discussed, and the interviewee was so inebriated that he didn't always make it clear he was discussing a hypothetical (like talking about hypothetical impacts to the endocrine system), but it was clear enough that he was not discussing actual effects.
Aside from those two points, I don't recall anything that SteakandEggs thought was problematic. Could you be more specific about the violations of trust? Or, if you were referring to one of the two points above, could you explain why it's more ethical to ignore future problem than prepare for them, or to speculate on potential bad outcomes?
If it were my employee who had said those words there would be swift and visible consequences. First, I would clearly state whether I employed him or not and exactly what his role was. Second, I would give him an opportunity to publicly explain himself. Third, he would almost certainly be fired, either for telling ridiculous lies about my company or for revealing what an incredibly unethical and criminal organization we ran. I realize I put you on ignore last night simply because that very first question indicates there may be no point in trying to reason with you, but I will give it a shot.
I appreciate the opportunity.
My comment was more far-reaching than just this thread, though. It's nearly impossible to have meaningful conversations about anything when tactics like slurs of racism are the go-to response of those who support the opposing position.
Racism affects everyone, because we are all raised with it. As a human, I was influenced by my racist upbringing, and I struggle daily to be aware of its messages and sift them out from reality. Saying person A is feeding into the racism in society does not mean they are hateful, spiteful, or unusual in any way.
Even black people who support conservative positions are branded as racists.
All people are racist, including black people, but some people (including some black people) buy more into the racist thought-lines of our society than others. Sometimes, we call these people "self-hating". A similar phenomenon happens to gay people, trans people, women, etc.
I disagree on your billionaire comment. I have several billionaire clients. I assure you that they are as different from one another as members of any other group you will ever meet. The tag "billionaire" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a person is good or bad. It may be true that the Kochs or the Waltons are as reprehensible as Soros, and I apologize for not listing a bad conservative alongside my bad liberal because I do understand why you would take offense at that.
To focus on a couple more liberals, Warren Buffet supports politicians that claim they want to raise his taxes, but never seem to. He claims to be giving away all his money on his death, but most of that will go to a foundation that supports his views, and that his family will control and get money out of. Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard claims to be giving away his fortune to fight climate change, but again it's to charities that he controls. Do your billionaire clients act differently with their money?
Remember the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25, if you want to refresh). Much will be expected to whom much has been given. Even as an atheist, I find much value in that message.
It used to be that family fortunes would dissipate over generations. Instead, the billionaires find ways to conserve wealth and power over generations, gathering more and more for themselves. As much as anything else, that's what's undermining our country.
The reason I included the stuff about Soros, political persuasions aside, is that as much as I would love to have a Kumbaya relationship with the majority of people, I believe we must remain cognizant that there are people in this world who prey on the fact that most of the rest of us are constrained by morality and honesty. If you or anyone else has an argument that explains Soros behavior in a positive light I would be interested in seeing it, and I will do my very best to reconsider my assessment of him. Based on the info currently available to me he appears to be a vile predator.
Has Soros killed anyone, to your knowledge? Do you have evidence he is a pedophile? A drug-lord? A wife abuser? His success seems to be based on a couple of successful prediction of financial bubbles and correctly managing his hedge fund. What has he actually done that earn him these names?
