[consteval]

It certainly is, and I would imagine letting the children chained up in your sweatshop go would be bad for business too. On the bright side, their eyes won't be adjusted to the sunlight, so they won't get very far.

Yes, you can frame this as "bad for business". Contrary to what all the armchair economists online will say, you should never just do what's good for business. If we did we would be seeing crimes against humanity. And we do, just not here.

Its always a balancing act. Often what's good for business isn't good, and what's bad for business isn't bad. You need more robust reasoning than that. Because if that's all you're relying on to form your opinions, you have no substance.

[jpcfl]

When Apple chains children up in sweatshops, please let me know.

[consteval]

My point is that "bad for business" on its own doesn't really mean much. Often people can't see the holes in their arguments or beliefs. But when you enlarge the view and take it to its logical conclusion, the holes become obvious.

[jpcfl]

And my point is that a store deciding to unionize could negatively impact the business. Calling for the death of the company, and inciting images of child slaves in chains is not an argument against that. It's an appeal to emotion.

[consteval]

It's not an appeal to emotions, it's a logical argument.

You're saying "well okay it could negatively impact business".

I'm replying "that doesn't mean anything, and sometimes negatively impacting business is very good".

It's not enough to just say something. You need to explain WHY. So what? Who cares? If you don't answer that, I'm sorry, you don't have an argument and anyone wise would choose to not listen to you.

It's bad for business. Okay let's assume that's true. So what? What's the big idea? What's the cost versus the benefit?

[jpcfl]

> sometimes negatively impacting business is very good

This is an oxymoron.