RE: WePay Withholds Funds From Sick Woman Due To Offer Of Porn For Donations
May 20, 2014 at 10:46 am
(This post was last modified: May 20, 2014 at 10:48 am by John V.)
(May 20, 2014 at 8:28 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Withholding funds from a sick woman because of dislike of her employment "seems reasonable" to you?No, and that's not the case. They withheld funds because she offered to exchange pornography for donations, which is a violation of the contract she agreed to. You act as if she merely mentioned her occupation and they shut her down, but that's not true according to the link.
Quote:And also, the fact that the original MD report suggested that her reaction was due to hard drug usage when instead it appears to have been down to an allergic reaction makes the whole basis for this utterly null and void anyway.That has nothing to do with the shutdown, which was based on an offer of pornography in exchange for donations.
Quote:And how does this actually relate to her occupation anyway? If the above is true, then her illness is not in anyway related to her occupation making their objection groundless.Read the article FFS. It's about an offer to give pornography for donations, not just a judgment on her occupation.
Quote:Turns out wepay agreed and ultimately released the funds to her anyway.They released some funds, and returned some to donors.
Quote:Shit, John. You want to try and convince us that you guys hold the key to objective moral truths and that you're sense of morality would trump those that don't follow your own? Some evidence of that being patently false is right here on this thread for those that would agree with you.Shit Fidel, take your head out of your ass and read. I don't argue for objective moral truths. Just the opposite. No wonder you can't get a decent job.
(May 20, 2014 at 9:14 am)Esquilax Wrote: The issue isn't whether the rules exist, but whether their existence or implementation is reasonable, both in this case and more broadly. "Them's the rules," isn't an automatically reasonable statement, John.This regards a contract, and yes, unless the subject matter of the contract is illegal, the contract is presumed to be reasonable, as she didn't have to agree to it in the first place.
