Gen. Flynn lied concerning his pre-innauguration communications with Russia.

[Tassman]

For the purposes of this conversation, let me quote Porter. If you have a business or work at any organization at all, it can only be of help

Source: Michael Porter, What is Strategy?

(Executive summary excerpt)
(...) In contrast, the essence of strategy is choosing a unique and valuable position rooted in systems of activities that are much more difficult to match. Porter thus traces the economic basis of competitive advantage down to the level of the specific activities a company performs.

(Article excerpts)
(...) Finally, trade-offs arise from the limits for internal coordination and control. When opting decidedly to compete one way and not another, high executives make clear the priorities of the organization. On the contrary, companies that try to satisfy every need of every customer risk generating confusion within the organization as their employees try to make daily operative decisions without a defined framework.

Positioning trade-offs abound in competition and are essential for strategy. They create the need to choose and deliberately limit what a company offers. They prevent the practices of reaching too much or repositioning oneself, since the competitors who employ those methods undermine their strategies and diminish the value of their existing activities.

© Copyright Original Source

The full article is behind a pay wall, so if you haven't read Porter's ideas, you could start with this SlideShare presentation, which more or less outlines the contents of said article.

The whole talk about trade-offs, creating fit between a company's activities, and generating a sustainable competitive advantage, in this case means that a company COULD choose to focus on "Christian cakes" (or any other niche, mind you) if they see it has the potential to serve the needs of a specific subset of customers, for example (this would be even more pronounced if they style themselves as selling "Christian products, period"). They COULD choose to drive their activities to that end, and have continual training processses through which the bakers improve their cooking AND their theology to create better Christian cakes (better in both the "Christian" and the "cakes" aspects), IF they see this as potentially generating a strategic advantage -- in other words, as long as this gives them an edge over a regular bakery trying to make Christian cakes AND over the Christian cookie shop trying to make Christian cakes, because neither of them has this company's specific business processes. It's hard to envision in this particular example because cakes aren't your typical high-added-value product or service, but you get the idea.

In the same way, I obviously respect the strategic position of Victoria's Secret, and boy, has it worked. They perform better offering a product aimed at half the population than if they had a generic brand aimed at all of it (it is my understanding there was a time when they did sell male underwear), so, can they be forced to change it for 'leaving us out'?

[Raphael]

Who said that? Quit trying to deflect the point! Either a 13 year old is capable of consent or they aren't.

In a number of countries they can....
https://www.ageofconsent.net/highest-and-lowest

Source: www.ageofconsent.net

The highest Age of Consent in the world is 21 in Bahrain. The second-highest age of consent is 20 in South Korea, while the majority of other countries have an Age of Consent between 16 and 18.

The lowest Age of Consent in the world is 11, in Nigeria. The age of consent is 12 in the Philippines and Angola, and 13 in Burkina Faso, Comoros, Niger, and Japan. Japan often stands out as the only developed country on the list of lowest ages of consent, but local prefecture statutes in most areas of the country raise the effective age to 16-18.

Additionally, several Middle Eastern and African countries have no legal age of consent, but ban all sexual relations outside of marriage. This has raised concerns by many international organizations, especially in some countries where girls are married at as young as 9 or 10 years old. Countries with marriage-based ages of consent include Afghanistan, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the UAE.

© Copyright Original Source

[Mountain Man]

So according to Tassman's arguments, he is effectively unopposed to pedophilia.

[Tassman]

So according to Tassman's arguments, he is effectively unopposed to pedophilia.

I said the exact opposite, learn to read.

[Mountain Man]

I said the exact opposite, learn to read.

It's the logical implication of your arguments. Own it, sucker.

[Mountain Man]

Because under-age persons are not sufficiently mature to give informed consent and are thus exposed to possible exploitation. This is contrary to the best interests of the young person concerned and to the community at large in that it's damaging to the social fabric.

Possible exploitation? But not necessarily exploitative, right? What about societies where young girls are placed in arranged marriages with adult men with the informed consent of their families? You're OK with that, right?

And again, we do all sorts of things to children without their consent. Why is sex any different?

Your argument still basically reads, "Informed consent is morally necessary because it's morally necessary."

[Bisto]

So you are basically saying it is unlawful for a business to offer any product or service specifically designed as "Christian" (and therefore unapproving of any product features that go against the producer's Christian view, e.g. affirming any thing deemed un-Christian by the business), "Muslim" (ditto), "Jewish" (Jesus Christ-themed cake?), "kosher", etc. inasmuch as there is the possibility of individuals wanting to purchase the product or service with features that go against that producer-designed value proposition.

In other words, you are saying it is lawful to label and sell "Christian", "Muslim", etc. products only if they are designed in such a way that they can be sold to any potential customer with whatever features they want, which -by definition- would leave out value propositions and strategic positions like those I mentioned. At least, in the legal context you are presupposing (that is a US law you are mentioning, right?).



I am not sure we agree on the possible significance of the strategic dimension of these business choices. Let me try a somewhat different approach.

You continue to leave out gender, presumably because it isn't included in the law you allude to (if your reasoning is different, please let me know). Is that distinction not important for the purposes of this conversation? With the posible exception of race, it is clearly the most visibly obvious distinction between people I can think of. Is that one distinction where you do accept a business choosing to market to one segment of the population only? Or does that depend on the product? Or on the presumed motivations behind the business' choice? For example, Victoria's Secret discontinued their male line, to my understanding, because it was unprofitable. Now, I can imagine a feminist underwear firm choosing to only sell female underwear based on their ideology. Should either one cave in to a movement requesting them to sell products for men?

[Bill the Cat]

Because under-age persons are not sufficiently mature to give informed consent

Sorry, but yes they can if their partner is of like age.

[Cow Poke]

Because under-age persons are not sufficiently mature to give informed consent and are thus exposed to possible exploitation.

But they can decide they were born the wrong sex and have body parts hacked off.....

This is contrary to the best interests of the young person concerned and to the community at large in that it's damaging to the social fabric.

Same with all the gender confusion insanity.

[Tassman]

So you are basically saying it is unlawful for a business to offer any product or service specifically designed as "Christian" (and therefore unapproving of any product features that go against the producer's Christian view, e.g. affirming any thing deemed un-Christian by the business), "Muslim" (ditto), "Jewish" (Jesus Christ-themed cake?), "kosher", etc. inasmuch as there is the possibility of individuals wanting to purchase the product or service with features that go against that producer-designed value proposition.

In other words, you are saying it is lawful to label and sell "Christian", "Muslim", etc. products only if they are designed in such a way that they can be sold to any potential customer with whatever features they want, which -by definition- would leave out value propositions and strategic positions like those I mentioned. At least, in the legal context you are presupposing (that is a US law you are mentioning, right?).



I am not sure we agree on the possible significance of the strategic dimension of these business choices. Let me try a somewhat different approach.

You continue to leave out gender, presumably because it isn't included in the law you allude to (if your reasoning is different, please let me know). Is that distinction not important for the purposes of this conversation? With the posible exception of race, it is clearly the most visibly obvious distinction between people I can think of. Is that one distinction where you do accept a business choosing to market to one segment of the population only? Or does that depend on the product? Or on the presumed motivations behind the business' choice? For example, Victoria's Secret discontinued their male line, to my understanding, because it was unprofitable. Now, I can imagine a feminist underwear firm choosing to only sell female underwear based on their ideology. Should either one cave in to a movement requesting them to sell products for men?

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-baker...st-gay-couple/

[Tassman]

Possible exploitation? But not necessarily exploitative, right?

If underage persons are at risk of "possible exploitation" then they warrant protection, right?

What about societies where young girls are placed in arranged marriages with adult men with the informed consent of their families? You're OK with that, right?

"Informed consent of their families" is NOT informed consent from the girl in question. You understand that, right?

And again, we do all sorts of things to children without their consent. Why is sex any different?

Surely ALL child abuse, sexual or otherwise, is unacceptable, right?

Your argument still basically reads, "Informed consent is morally necessary because it's morally necessary."

No, it still reads that in our society informed consent is a moral requirement at all times because our society demands it.

Sorry, but yes they can if their partner is of like age.

So what are you saying, that it's OK or not OK?

[Bisto]

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-baker...st-gay-couple/

They're questions my friend. I'm trying to better understand the thinking and implications involved.

Does such a legal ruling, then, forbid the design of any product or service that may come to be perceived as discriminating someone through its "natural" target customers?

So... would the same apply for the feminist female underwear firm? If so, would it apply to Victoria's Secret too?

[Bill the Cat]

So what are you saying, that it's OK or not OK?

No. I'm saying a 13 year old CAN consent, as seen by Romeo and Juliette laws. Abortion laws also allow consent by minors where Parental Consent laws are not in place. So, there has to be another reason pedophilia is not allowed because "inability to consent" doesn't hold water.

[Roy]

No. I'm saying a 13 year old CAN consent, as seen by Romeo and Juliette laws.

Is it that a 13yo can consent, or is it that a 13yo cannot consent and the other 13yo cannot seek consent?

The above probably isn't clear, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it.

[robrecht]

Is it that a 13yo can consent, or is it that a 13yo cannot consent and the other 13yo cannot seek consent?

The above probably isn't clear, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it.

I think that is indeed partly true, and that the ability to give consent, especially in younger or less mature persons, develops in degrees over time and is not simply a binary black and white proposition.