▲ 399 ▼ McDonald's is getting rid of self-serve drinks and some locations may charge for refills (www.cbsnews.com) submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world 163 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] emberwit@feddit.de 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's the governments responsibility to make companies pay their fair share of taxes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Norgur@fedia.io 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Exactly. Don't blame fucking companies for doing what companies were always about to do. Blame the government for letting them. If you get mauled by a lion, you won't blame the lion, you (or your heirs) will blame the zoo for saving money on the fence. Why is it different with companies? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) So because the zoo fucked up I shouldn't be upset with the lion for mauling people? You can be upset at two things simultaneously, and you sure as shit don't need to support making life harder for the people already being mauled. That's some "Boys will be boys" defense right there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Norgur@fedia.io 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) there is no defense in there. I never defended the company. I just called your stance that companies ought to do social welfare unreasonable. I very much like everyone to do social welfare stuff, but to blame companies when they refuse to do what the fucking government should is just a pretty twisted stance, innit? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* There's a difference between providing social welfare and not actively worsening the experience for paying customers to spite the vulnerable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Norgur@fedia.io 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Exactly. Don't blame fucking companies for doing what companies were always about to do. Blame the government for letting them. If you get mauled by a lion, you won't blame the lion, you (or your heirs) will blame the zoo for saving money on the fence. Why is it different with companies? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) So because the zoo fucked up I shouldn't be upset with the lion for mauling people? You can be upset at two things simultaneously, and you sure as shit don't need to support making life harder for the people already being mauled. That's some "Boys will be boys" defense right there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Norgur@fedia.io 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) there is no defense in there. I never defended the company. I just called your stance that companies ought to do social welfare unreasonable. I very much like everyone to do social welfare stuff, but to blame companies when they refuse to do what the fucking government should is just a pretty twisted stance, innit? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* There's a difference between providing social welfare and not actively worsening the experience for paying customers to spite the vulnerable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) So because the zoo fucked up I shouldn't be upset with the lion for mauling people? You can be upset at two things simultaneously, and you sure as shit don't need to support making life harder for the people already being mauled. That's some "Boys will be boys" defense right there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Norgur@fedia.io 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) there is no defense in there. I never defended the company. I just called your stance that companies ought to do social welfare unreasonable. I very much like everyone to do social welfare stuff, but to blame companies when they refuse to do what the fucking government should is just a pretty twisted stance, innit? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* There's a difference between providing social welfare and not actively worsening the experience for paying customers to spite the vulnerable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Norgur@fedia.io 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) there is no defense in there. I never defended the company. I just called your stance that companies ought to do social welfare unreasonable. I very much like everyone to do social welfare stuff, but to blame companies when they refuse to do what the fucking government should is just a pretty twisted stance, innit? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* There's a difference between providing social welfare and not actively worsening the experience for paying customers to spite the vulnerable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* There's a difference between providing social welfare and not actively worsening the experience for paying customers to spite the vulnerable. permalink fedilink source parent