Neither, so long as your two statements aren’t mutually exclusive and/or contradict each other. On the other hand, if you kept her locked in the basement “for her safety” and then later admitted that no, actually it had nothing to do with her safety but just that you loved her and wanted to control her movements, then you definitely lied to her and she’d probably wouldn’t appreciate your “love” at that point, and rightfully so. The actual content of the different or multiple beliefs and how they affect us personally demand how we judge them.
Sure, the fact that any CEO is rich and that doesn’t necessarily tell us whether a company is profitable or not is it’s own problem. However, we do know that telecom companies are profitable in the US, even if one op ed has declared that we’re only 1/4th as profitable as our European counterparts, that doesn’t mean we’re not profitable.
Also, [another NYT op ed][1] claims that our European counterparts, while more profitable, are also cheaper for the consumer than in the US. Why might that be? Lack of competition, the op ed claims. So we’re more expensive but have worse profit margins? Why is that? We don’t know, but we do know they plainly lied about why they throttled consumers while charging us more. Which should rightly piss us off.
[1]: The Broadband Gap: Why Is Theirs Cheaper? - The New York Times[quote=“bwv812, post:17, topic:17112”]
Not buying it. If your chief objection is that they lied, then why would you lie in the first place and claim they are “HIGHLY profitable”?
In other words, there’s some terrible, factually-unsupported logic going on here.
[/quote]
Ultimately, neither you nor anyone else here has absolute proof of either stance, this does not put the burden of proof solely on those speaking out against the telecom’s practices. How do we know they’re profitable? How do you know they’re not? Profitability statements in the US allow companies loopholes to avoid taxes that may not be taken into consideration, especially “investment” categories that may or may not be something we’d agree we’re legit even if “legal”. There are more factors than any of us can get proper info on. Why do we have to prove it on a level that you don’t? Frankly, unless you want to provide cold hard evidence that someone on this forum is wrong in ways that invalidate their core points, no one else has to provide cold hard evidence that they’re right.
