Well, you're clearly wrong here. It is both morally and ethically wrong to pursue a business model in which you screw over workers and taxpayers in order to create massive profits for yourself.
You are begging the question here by saying he "screw[ed] over workers". You merely parroting the claim a different way when substantiation for it was being requested.
inherently unethical. If the workers are needed for the business you are shooting yourself in the foot to let them go if not then there is no reason not to let them go. Businesses are not charities and have no obligation to be run as charities.
They bought distressed businesses and made layoffs to turn them around. What about this is unjustly screwing over the workers to you? Do you think companies are obligated to keep jobs that don't help them?
If they are letting people who help them and who they need go, then they aren't being unethical, just stupid. If they are letting people who they do not need go they they are doing the most ethical thing (they have fiduciary duty to their investors and have no such duty to keep people hired indefinitely).
But, based on our previous conversations in which you've made it clear that you consider practically nothing a business or it's owners can do to be unethical, I'm not especially surprised.
I think it's unethical to be that untruthful about what your interlocutor's position is. I merely don't agree with your positions which in a similar caricature would be: "businesses is bad."
Not looking to rehash old arguments with you on this matter;
Neither am I, just wanted to see if you actually had any specific claim to unethical to make or were merely parroting the mudslinging of Romney's political opponents. You've made plenty clear that you are just participating in the mindless mudslinging too and that you don't have any case for anything really unethical to make, just negative aspersions to cast. We don't need to rehash the entire body of our political differences for this much to be obvious, that you would rather not answer and would rather talk about me and my politics is answer enough.
Suffice it to say that I don't have much respect for your viewpoint regarding proper ethical behavior and corporate governance - and I would bet that the average American viewpoint on this issue is far closer to mine than yours. After all, we are the ones being screwed over by this behavior.
You've wasted a lot more words telling me that than it would have taken to answer the question, but I understand that the words you chose are easier to write than answering the question would be.
It's always easier to merely spout fallacies. Say, disparaging your interlocutor's position (ad hominem
), or making an appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum
), than answer a tough question but it's also fairly transparent a tactic and will only deflect the daft.