Monsanto?!

[Taylor]

Is their cash any less green than any other business?
I thought their display was well-thought-out and well done. It highlighted the scientific and technological aspects of agrarian careers - something that is often wrongfully forgotten. It was interactive, interesting, and worked for many age groups.
Many people don't realize that many of the biggest historical advances in many technologies - for instance dial-up modems and instant global weather reports - were pioneered by the American Farmer.
Good for them for reminding us that agriculture truly is a cutting-edge sector, and the people who work in it are out standing in their field (ha!).

[Jessica Boucher]

They also gave tons of volunteers to Championship.

[Tungrus]

We are hoping Monsanto to sponsor us and give us that miracle fertilizer to grow our team and genetically modify our mentor to be super duper mentors!

[Lil' Lavery]

They're hardly the only FIRST sponsor with business practices I find distasteful. That doesn't mean that everything they do is wrong, or that they're less valuable as a sponsor to the program. So long as champs is in St Louis, it makes sense to have them onboard.

[Andrew Schreiber]

So, it's ok for a company that profits off of finding a more efficient way to kill people (Boeing, Lockheed, and their ilk) to sponsor FIRST but not these guys?*

I guess I just don't understand all the hate for these folks. Their money is just as green, their volunteers just as helpful, and their goals are probably just as noble.




*I don't have a problem with these companies either.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

They're hardly the only FIRST sponsor with business practices I find distasteful. That doesn't mean that everything they do is wrong, or that they're less valuable as a sponsor to the program.

This.

Moreover, business practices aside, GM crops are hugely important to modern society and we need people going into agricultural sciences.

[who716]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

They're hardly the only FIRST sponsor with business practices I find distasteful. That doesn't mean that everything they do is wrong, or that they're less valuable as a sponsor to the program. So long as champs is in St Louis, it makes sense to have them onboard.

I agree with you totally all though there practice is distasteful you learn from experince that you never turn down a sponsor ship oppertunity money is money.

[Tungrus]

I my humble opinion money is not money, when its tainted! I am NOT talking specific to Monsanto there is a huge discussion about and its impact. Depending on which side you are, the resources can be considered as good or tainted. I will not be the judge, jury or executioner. I will leave it to smart people at FIRST to evaluate the ethical part of it and trust they will do a good job. When I seek sponsor I stay from certain businesses who I don't approve off, but this doesnot mean that I am expert in other businesses and know that their money is not tainted. Its my judgement call. As far as Monsanto is concerned I would not mind their presence as long as FIRST has made that decision.

[Lil' Lavery]

Speaking hypothetically, why turn down a good deed from a bad person/organization? If, say, the mafia were to donate money and supplies to hurricane relief efforts, should that be denied?


disclaimer: I am not comparing Monsanto to the mafia, nor do I oppose GMOs.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Speaking hypothetically, why turn down a good deed from a bad person/organization? If, say, the mafia were to donate money and supplies to hurricane relief efforts, should that be denied?

Wait, seriously? Mafia presumably is an organization that primarily works in illegal industries.

Monsanto is a perfectly legal company whether you agree with their business practices or not.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Wait, seriously? Mafia presumably is an organization that primarily works in illegal industries.

Monsanto is a perfectly legal company whether you agree with their business practices or not.

The statement was intentionally hyperbolic to provoke thought and discussion of the issue here. It was in response to the post above it, regarding "tainted money," and contained a direct analogy to real world events. I prefaced it with "speaking hypothetically" for a reason.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

The statement was intentionally hyperbolic to provoke thought and discussion of the issue here. It was in response to the post above it, regarding "tainted money," and contained a direct analogy to real world events. I prefaced it with "speaking hypothetically" for a reason.

I'll say the same thing I said privately then: That argument is flawed. It means that any arguments (or at least any parallels we could draw) are based on the assumption that Monsanto has done something illegal (or, has not paid the court ordered penalty for illegal actions if they DID do something illegal). You may call them morally repugnant (and there's a chance I'd even agree with that) but to claim they have broken the law and not paid all legally required penalties is a dangerous road to tread on.

Now, what discussion should we be having here? A discussion about whether a company that makes its profits in ways that some of us call questionable should be allowed to donate to groups? A discussion whether FIRST should have turned away funding from a company that makes its profits this way? Or can we just be happy that some of this, in your opinion, ill gotten money is being given back to a group that isn't bad?

I'm cool having any of those discussions, but if this is going to turn into comparing a legal company to an organization focused on illegal activities or in attacking specific companies I'm not so sure that this is the proper forum.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

I'll say the same thing I said privately then: That argument is flawed. It means that any arguments (or at least any parallels we could draw) are based on the assumption that Monsanto has done something illegal (or, has not paid the court ordered penalty for illegal actions if they DID do something illegal). You may call them morally repugnant (and there's a chance I'd even agree with that) but to claim they have broken the law and not paid all legally required penalties is a dangerous road to tread on.

Please find where I claimed they have broken the law. You won't be able to, because I didn't. You're attempting to insert assumptions about the intents of my statements that aren't actually present in my statements. Please read what I read and take it literally, rather inserting your own biases when you attempt to read between the lines.

My point was rhetorical. My choice of using the mafia was intended to find an organization that everyone could find obvious flaws with and largely contempt towards, as well as drawing a parallel to the real word activities of the Yakuza in Japan after the 2011 tsunami. The idea was to demonstrate that even "morally repugnant" organizations can do good deeds. Rather than follow was is essentially a ad hominem attack on the organization, this action of the organization should be viewed on its own merits.

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Now, what discussion should we be having here? A discussion about whether a company that makes its profits in ways that some of us call questionable should be allowed to donate to groups? A discussion whether FIRST should have turned away funding from a company that makes its profits this way? Or can we just be happy that some of this, in your opinion, ill gotten money is being given back to a group that isn't bad?

I'm cool having any of those discussions, but if this is going to turn into comparing a legal company to an organization focused on illegal activities or in attacking specific companies I'm not so sure that this is the proper forum.

You seem to grasp the basic point of my comment. Rather than attempting to spin my post into something it was not meant to be, and which nobody but yourself has drawn publically, you can chose to continue with the conversation.

[E Dawg]

Would any single person legitimately feel comfortable showing the CEO of Monsanto this thread? There was already a similar discussion (although the issue was different) with FIRST being sponsored by Jane Cosmetics. I know we may not all agree on our sponsors, and that's fine. No company is perfect. But are we really going to go back and forth on CD having conversations about our sponsors that could easily be interpreted as ungrateful?

Nobody is forcing any of our sponsors to help us. It's by their own choice, and they could at any point decide to stop sponsoring FIRST. The best way we can hold on to our sponsors is by showing gratitude to them. I've yet to see a thread on CD that THANKS major FIRST sponsors. I've only seen ones questioning them. I can tell from these threads most people are grateful, but I'm not so sure we do a very good job of showing it.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Wait, seriously? Mafia presumably is an organization that primarily works in illegal industries.

Monsanto is a perfectly legal company whether you agree with their business practices or not.

That's not the issue here. We're discussing ethics, not legality. If the only judgement of a company's ethical practice is strict adherence to the law, then pretty much any business is ethical. I don't think most would agree with this assessment. Sean's point was to pick an *obviously* unethical organization giving money to an *obviously* ethical cause to stimulate discussion.

Something that makes this situation different than other ethical decisions involving individuals and corporations is that sponsorship of an FRC team is rarely a large net benefit to the sponsoring organization (at least short term). The extra press and attention the brand gets is not particularly notable, certainly not for the cost. It's a lot harder to argue that agreeing to be sponsored by an organization is a form of supporting that organization. Choosing not to be sponsored by a company you have deemed unethical for whatever reason doesn't hurt the company or prevent it from growing at all.

Buying company product, working with the company, working for the company, these are when ethical decisions obviously come to play. I don't necessarily see how they do here.