Show of HandsShow of Hands

Shazam March 19th, 2015 8:47pm

On one hand, you have private industries saying a practice is completely safe. On the other, you have a bunch of non-profits saying it's very dangerous. There are (of course) politicians and scientists on both sides. Who do you find more credible?

8 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Nik
03/19/15 6:40 pm

Yea, cigarettes are safe, Dow said that the early breast implants were safe, the list goes on and on. I always trust the for profit corporations

Zod Above Pugetropolis
03/19/15 4:01 pm

Whichever one makes the video of tap water that burns.

Reply
DGroot America
03/20/15 3:54 pm

Which was totally discredited btw.

DGroot America
03/21/15 7:13 am

I assumed you were talking about the "Gasland" video which was prove false. I'm not aware of the others. www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/03/07/dont-be-swayed-by-faucets-on-fire-and-other-anti-fracking-propaganda/

TierasPet
03/19/15 3:13 pm

Neither. Both have reasons to lie.

Reply
Ebola1 Florida
03/19/15 2:50 pm

There is no difference in FP and NFP other than the for profits pay taxes back to the community. Not for profits make profits sometimes much larger than FP.

Ebola1 Florida
03/19/15 2:50 pm

I would follow the science and give absolutely no credence to a companies profit or not for profit status.

Arananthi Literal Ninja
03/19/15 2:41 pm

In general, without knowing anything other than the profit-status of the organizations, I find the for-profit side has a greater motivation to lie, cheat, and steal. But of course you need much more information to make a solid decision.

Reply
Ebola1 Florida
03/19/15 2:51 pm

You obviously haven't had much experience with not for profit hospitals.

OhTheIrony Learning from you
03/19/15 3:19 pm

Aran is making a relative comparison, not an absolute one. He's not saying non-profits can't be corrupt, rather that corporations are more likely to be corrupt than non-profits.

I think that statement holds true.

FacePalm That Trick Never Works
03/20/15 6:48 am

I don't believe they are typical of non-profits. Could be wrong.

Jeninerd Hoth, AK
03/19/15 1:59 pm

The lack of financial motivation generally would make the non-profit more credible.

Reply
ronderman North Carolina
03/19/15 2:08 pm

Many non profits still have a financial motivation.

Abolitionist Voice of the people
03/19/15 2:13 pm

ALL for profits ALWAYS have a financial motivation.

ronderman North Carolina
03/19/15 2:14 pm

I agree, but as soon as you say ALL, someone makes it their life's mission to prove you wrong:)

Abolitionist Voice of the people
03/19/15 2:17 pm

True but this is a safe one; if you're in business for profit and you don't make profits, you cease to exist.

Ebola1 Florida
03/19/15 2:52 pm

That's not any different in the not for profits.

Abolitionist Voice of the people
03/19/15 2:59 pm

Yeah well, when the NFL is Americas definition of a non profit then ebola is probably right

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
03/19/15 1:48 pm

i know, I know. It depends. Generally speaking though, which do you find more believable?

Reply
Ebola1 Florida
03/19/15 2:54 pm

They are equally not believable. I'd have to consider the other evidence.