[Ghexor]

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment and your behavior. I'm grateful for everyone of us out there working with strong moral boundaries. Thank you!

I also disagree with your perspective on corporations. To me they seem very much alive - in a less recognisable form, more complex than we can grasp with human minds.

I argue mainly because I'd like to keep the term as something free of judgment. A group of people that comes together as a larger body or organism can be quite beautiful too.

[DanHulton]

> A group of people that comes together as a larger body or organism can be quite beautiful too.

Sure, but that doesn't have to be a corporation. There are all kinds of terms that describe that, and they don't come with the clear emotional and interpretational baggage that "corporation" does.

The term honestly isn't free of judgement, it carries with it a _lot_ of associations, and you can't just ignore them and pretend they're not there. Well, I mean you can, but you can't expect others to do the same. They're likely to interpret what you're saying as something else entirely.

For example, try talking about "a corporation of churchgoers" and see what kinds of reactions you get. =)

[fasterik]

If they're a group of people working toward some common purpose within an organizational structure that's legally recognized, that's a corporation. Just because it's become a bad word in certain sectors doesn't mean the concept is inherently corrupted.

>For example, try talking about "a corporation of churchgoers" and see what kinds of reactions you get.

I would point out that most churches are 501(c)(3) corporations ;)