Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Take your pick from these 14.

Philip Morris, Monsanto, Nestle, Wal-Mart and Coca-Cola all seem to feature prominently in these discussions.

When I think of evil...I don't think that retail stores or religions are 'all that evil'.
They may promote activities or by their actions cause harm or at least difficulties for those who work for or with them. They may have practices that are harmful, cause polution etc.
But I don't really find that evil.

These companies, & what they are doing , this I find comes very close to evil.
Geishoku Labo
Kyukuyo Co. Ltd.
True World Foods
Hvalur

Other companies that deal or promote the products that can only come from ENDANGERED SPECIES, this I find to be a form of evil behavior.

NOTE - I have no problem with sustainable production of animals for their meat & other products, that can be harvested. I have only targeted those who especially tageting fin whales (who are in the Red List of endangered species ) the distruction of a species, on purpose...that's evil IMO.

The Royal Airship Works are surely evil - the R101 was the Ford Pinto of zeppelins.

Yes, there is a slight degree of sarcasm there...

At 2/21/09 04:12 AM, n64kid wrote: 1) They were found guilty in a class action suit and paid hundreds of millions.

Yes, they were sued, and now they're back to making billions. I guess it would be fine if the lawsuit had kicked them in the nuts hard enough to turn them into a company with decent business practices, but, as we both know, it didn't.

2) PCBs and the reselling of water they tainted, as far as I know, ended in the 70s. Now all they do is sue people based on their intellectual property rights. They're a joke now.

Keyword 'as far as I know'. I'll acknowledge that they're probably not doing it in the US or Europe anymore, but in places like India where their more recent scandals (child labor for example, is an ongoing scandal) have taken place, I think it's likely that they're still doing it. Even if they aren't, you yourself said they've basically made a business out of suing farmers in the US and Canada. That in itself is a destructive business practice.

At 2/21/09 07:39 PM, n64kid wrote: Saturated fats are fats completely saturated by hydrogen molecules in chemical bonds. Hydrogenation of fats are just artificial means to making saturated fats, and are called trans fats. They are the same thing, and research has shown that the negative health risks that they pose, as expected given their chemical compunds, parallel each other.

So if you are right and trans fats are the same as saturated fats why are trans fats different from saturated fats? Why do companies go through the effort to make trans fats? They are different and trans fats are worse. A quick google search provides proof.
Also I don't support the ban on trans fats. People have a right to eat any unhealthy food and be fatasses if they want.

At 2/22/09 01:55 PM, Musician wrote:

Keyword 'as far as I know'. I'll acknowledge that they're probably not doing it in the US or Europe anymore, but in places like India where their more recent scandals (child labor for example, is an ongoing scandal) have taken place, I think it's likely that they're still doing it.

Keyword 'I think it's likely'

Even if they aren't, you yourself said they've basically made a business out of suing farmers in the US and Canada. That in itself is a destructive business practice.

Patents are a form of government intervention trying to keep things fair for those who invent something unique. As a supporter of regulation, you should like patents as it goes against free market.

At 2/22/09 03:49 PM, aninjaman wrote:

So if you are right and trans fats are the same as saturated fats why are trans fats different from saturated fats?

lol this sentence reads funny.

Why do companies go through the effort to make trans fats? They are different and trans fats are worse. A quick google search provides proof.

Health studies are one thing I wouldn't go looking online for. Truth be told I took a nutritional science course involving labs and fun research. A little organic chemisty in there as well. The think that differs between unsaturated and saturated fats are the degree of saturation of hydrogen molecules. Trans fatty acids are just artificial means to saturating unsaturated fats. All notable studies show that, like saturated fats, block beneficial effects of HDL cholesterol, raise levels of LDL to the same degree, and health risks such as CHD increase at the same rate.

Also I don't support the ban on trans fats. People have a right to eat any unhealthy food and be fatasses if they want.

I started this tangent because I'm against warning labels and bans on substances before elaborate tests have been made.

/topic.

Is it a fiction company or non fiction. If it's NF, I say 20th century fox because they've been promoting capitalism by forcing youtube to remove copyrighted videos and ban the uploaders!

At 2/23/09 12:01 AM, n64kid wrote:

At 2/22/09 03:49 PM, aninjaman wrote:

So if you are right and trans fats are the same as saturated fats why are trans fats different from saturated fats?

lol this sentence reads funny.

By that I meant if trans and saturated fats are the same thing then why do companies go throught the effort to make trans fats? Why do trans fats act as a perservitive while saturated fats don't?

At 2/23/09 04:42 PM, aninjaman wrote: By that I meant if trans and saturated fats are the same thing then why do companies go throught the effort to make trans fats? Why do trans fats act as a perservitive while saturated fats don't?

Not quite the same thing, they are similar because they increase LDL levels. They go through all the effort to make it trans because:
1) Turning liquid oil into solid fat creates margarine, cookies, etc
2) As someone said, hydrogenation works as a conservative.

However it'd be better to eat poliinsaturated fats to raise your HDL.

Back to topic, I believe the world's most evil company would be oil companies because they killed the electric car.

Or the US government, who for some reason involves into every other country's bussiness. Yeah, everything is a company nowadays.

I say it's a four-way tie: Wal-Mart, Procter & Gamble, Microsoft and 4Kids.

At 2/23/09 11:21 PM, HibiscusKazeneko wrote: I say it's a four-way tie: Wal-Mart, Procter & Gamble, Microsoft and 4Kids.

Oh yeah, I forgot Sony and L'Oreal.

At 2/23/09 12:01 AM, n64kid wrote: Keyword 'I think it's likely'

Let's not be naive. Monsanto has been caught dumping toxic chemicals more than once: there was also a scandal in the UK, where they were caught dumping PCBs and derivatives of Agent Orange into landfills. Stop for a second and think about this: Monsanto's subsidiary in India handles toxic chemicals (pesticides) that have to be processed (expensively) before they can be properly disposed of. Now, are you telling me that you think that Monsanto, given its record, would hesitate to dump toxic waste in India?

Patents are a form of government intervention trying to keep things fair for those who invent something unique. As a supporter of regulation, you should like patents as it goes against free market.

I won't let you dodge my point so easily. I've never said that I was against patents. What I did say was that the way they use their patents is destructive. That aside, I do believe that Monsanto's patents should be stripped from them given their evident abuse of them in the US and other countries.

At 2/24/09 03:54 PM, Musician wrote:

Let's not be naive. Monsanto has been caught dumping toxic chemicals more than once: there was also a scandal in the UK, where they were caught dumping PCBs and derivatives of Agent Orange into landfills. Stop for a second and think about this: Monsanto's subsidiary in India handles toxic chemicals (pesticides) that have to be processed (expensively) before they can be properly disposed of. Now, are you telling me that you think that Monsanto, given its record, would hesitate to dump toxic waste in India?

Because past activity always predicts future activity?
Given that it's in India, where the government is getting more and more active, with over a billion people to out the company, and yet still no concrete claims, I think they learned their lesson. That and it's not 1970 anymore.

I won't let you dodge my point so easily.

You used a draw back of lack of government involvement when what they were doing was still illegal. If they did something illegal, there shouldn't be MORE regulation. Why? Because there is already regulation making what they did illegal.

I've never said that I was against patents. What I did say was that the way they use their patents is destructive. That aside, I do believe that Monsanto's patents should be stripped from them given their evident abuse of them in the US and other countries.

What about small farmers that abuse those patents by infringement? Monsanto should be protected by the government for that.

12' blood-sucking lizard people running the Illuminati, running the banks through 13 German Jews in Switzerland, running the freemasons and other secret societies, running the British crown, running the United States, Israel and the Chinese running fascists and communists and the Muslims, all who own Coca-Cola, Disney and Microsoft who own the Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, NPD, who run the corporations who put rat shit in your food and water and brainwash you in order to realize an OLD idea of establishing a NEW World Order!

NOW... how the FUCK does this get to be defeated?! Any suggestions, questions, volunteers?

Oh snap! I thought it said "conspiracy"!

I need to start reading again ....