Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archaea
You're building strawmen.
Cite for me LHM's reason for the decision.
You can't.
Some posters attributed personal beliefs, but nobody showed anything as to why he did it, because he didn't disclose he reasoning, as well he shouldn't.
Whether the film is shown or not shown, it holds no interest for me. However, I'm in favor of a business's right to show what it wants to show. If such a film came along, and he pulled without issuing proclamations, he should have that rightl.
I'm basically against business being in politics; they should be in business for business sakes.
Show what you want. Go somewhere else to see what you want.
LHM never said it was out of moral reasons not to show it.
|
Building a straw man is when one presents a lie as reality and then tears down that lie. I have explicitly stated that I am posing a hypothetical situation. This is not a straw man.
You (and everyone else so far) are avoiding my question. However, you are responding to it indirectly. You seem to be implying (correct me if I am wrong) that a businessman should be able to do what he wants and no one should expect any reasoning or justification. I think such a position is indefensible. To make a stronger analogy, suppose Larry decided that he didn't want to show any movies that portrayed blacks in a positive light (bear with me, it is a hypothetical). Would you still hold to your dogma that "business is business"? I seriously doubt it.
And as for the issue of "no one knows LHM's reasons", that seems to be a bit of a dodge. We could certainly apply logic and list the most probable reasons:
1) Purely business
By catering to the Gayle Ruzicka types, he gets a boost in sales. Wise business move? Perhaps. Shameful? I think so.
2) Moral reasons
I am still waiting for someone to make a convincing argument why gay sex is more evil than illicit hetero sex. If it is not, pulling this show and keeping all of the others indicates bigotry against gays.
Other?