Moki said:
...and when you have no points to make, claiming victimization is a valid technique, apparently?
Since Moki has engaged in a one-man crusade to defend the Fuente family both publcly in this thread, and in private via PM where he continued to cast recrimination, I thought this would be a good opportunity to vet this once and for all.
It's interesting how a discussion on business ethics gets wrapped around the axle of rhetoric when "it's for the children" is injected into the dialog. What you see happening here is EXACTLY what I was speaking about, where other issues are ignored because of the "feel good" motivation.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as I recall.
I state again for the record that I'm all for charity, and PERSONALLY (not through my business as a tax deduction) devote a uncommonly large amount of my time and money to a nonprofit cause myself. I believe that the Fuente foundation has done some remarkable work, but that does not dismiss questions related to the business circumstances under which those monies are generated. I personally consider charitable dollars that are generated from unfair business practices to be less virtuous than those which are done "on the level".
This thread began life as a discussion about unfair business practices. At post
#11 it went around the bend because the matter of the CFCF was injected. Since then, it's been unilaterally taken on a one-way tangent. And that's fine... I'm a big boy and can roll with it. But when you a) hijack a thread, b) misread things out of context, c) put words in my mouth, and finally d) castigate me publicly and privately, that necessitates a response.
Let's go to the video tape:
From post
#19
Hammerhead said:
James, I agree with your line of thinking, and I don't think anyone here is disputing the economics of it. I think the question is the double standard.
This establishes the basis of my premise.
From post
#30
Hammerhead said:
just to vent in general, another way to help children is to teach them lessons of integrity. Like not having two sets of rules whenever it suits you. Like being on the level with your business partners... Not to disparage the Fuente family's philanthropy, but I'm so sick of having all kinds of irresponsible unfair and often downright unconstitutional or just plain old unethical behaviors excused because "it's for the children", that my head is ready to explode.
For those who
were paying attention, this post expands on a general principle stated earlier. For those of you who weren't paying attention and have an agenda, you'd focus on one word in that entire paragraph and single it out so as to go on a one man crusade.
From that same post above
Hammerhead said:
The reality is that although the Fuente family might not be holding up the bank, they're driving the getaway car, in that Casa Fuente, licensed as it is, would not be there at all if not for the supply they receive.
Once again, we see how selective focus on the part of some people can bely an agenda. Were it my business, I never would have entered into that licensing agreement, no matter how noble the cause, without first having established a methodology to accommodate all my dealers.
Through it all, Moki is insisting that the Fuente family has nothing to do with Casa Fuente, despite the fact that the location bears their name, obtains product when other legitimate stocking dealers can't, and has their own self-branded line of cigars that are made of tobacco from... uh... Reno? Boise? Or is that tobacco from the Fuente farms? Now let's see... hmmm... nothing to do with that store? No financial stake in the venue? Sorry, I'm not buyin' it.
Moki said:
Right, right. Screw the impoverished children in the Dominican, what really counts is all those whiney cigar smokers are upset that they can't get certain cigars that they want on a regular basis.
There it goes again. Rather than address the issue, we excuse it, because "its for the children". Now let's look at the other things that are for the children.
- Anti-transfat legislation is for the children, and we can't get decent KFC anymore
- Anti-smoking legislation is for the children, and now business owners can't cater to their desire clientele, and some people can't even smoke in their apartments.
- Anti-gun legislation is for the children, and has vicimized millions of Americans by rendering them defenseless...
And the list goes on. This is an object case in unintended consequences when we dismiss the attendant factors because we're so busy trying to make ourselves feel better about doing something nice.
I say again: Charity is only virtuous if it's fair.
It's my belief that when someone is so close to an issue because he's having his winkie wanked by a vendor, he tends to lose perspective - as in only focusing in selectively on what makes a case, rather than reading things in context and being objective about the issue.
Had I the time or inclination, I could talk at length about how companies manipulate their distribution channel through the selective use and exercise of:
1) Authorized dealer agreements and the threat of their withdrawal,
2) Allocation methods to keep said dealers in line,
3) Forced line extensions where dealers must buy one thing to get another,
4) Cooperative advertising dollars (or the lack thereof),
5) Adherence to MAP (Minimum Advertised Price) policies...
And other heavy-handed methods that we could be here for weeks. Truthfully, it's a study in its own right.
Hopefully this will address the recriminations that have been cast, and get the thread back to the stated purpose of discussing the business practices.
