Should CAG be looking for a new sponsor?

G

GreatRedDragon

CAGiversary!
So this happened....

Apparently there's video of the event as well which I haven't been able to bring myself to watch.

TL;DR

Bob Parsons, CEO of GoDaddy, on a recent trip to Zimbabwe shot an elephant.

Here's the thing: it was a so-called "problem elephant" which evidently is a real problem in Zimbabwe for villagers and farmers who have to contend with these massive creatures wrecking their villages and eating their crops. However the World Wildlife Fund has clearly laid out a few non lethal methods of deterring the elephants who are endangered.

Parsons had this to say:

I stand by my decision to help African villagers. I believe elephant management is beneficial. I have the support of the people who really matter in this situation, the families of Zimbabwe— people who need help to survive. I have the support of tribal leaders and the government.
Click to expand...

I don't know him personally, but I kind of doubt that he was doing this strictly for the benefit of the villagers. If he really thought that elephant management was beneficial, why didn't he take the money that he spent on that hunting trip and put it towards one of WWF's non-lethal methods? He still could have taken a trip to Africa without murdering anything (obviously he's not short on money).

I never had much respect for GoDaddy in the first place, and no offense, Cheapy, Wombat, and Shipwreck but I probably would not have used your coupon codes. Now thanks to the company's own CEO I can say that unless their business/advertising practices are drastically altered and their upper management is overhauled, I will not be giving them my business.

What do you all think? Should CAG get a new sponsor? I think so.
 
Is the CAGcast making money from the GoDaddy sponsor? If so then they should continue to use them. If not then maybe it is time to look elsewhere. You can find a reason to hate every company if you look hard enough.
 
[quote name='Javery']Is the CAGcast making money from the GoDaddy sponsor? If so then they should continue to use them. If not then maybe it is time to look elsewhere. You can find a reason to hate every company if you look hard enough.[/QUOTE]

Bingo. I don't have the time or desire to further look into whether a guy shot an elephant for the right reasons or not. OP, do you have an iPhone? If so, would you stop supporting them due to all the Chinese workers getting sick?

I figured this was going to be a thread about Gamestop and how they are a sh***y retailer. Heh, go figure.
 
[quote name='berzirk']
I figured this was going to be a thread about Gamestop and how they are a sh***y retailer. Heh, go figure.[/QUOTE]

:) Usually a safe bet on this website.
 
Here's the problem: A corporation consists of a multitude of people, both moral and immoral (if that's even possible given a corporation is not an individual with a conscious but rather a conglomeration of people).

In other words, I'm sure for every positive action a corporation does there's a negative one. There's just way too many injustices/rightful doings to list. In my opinion, in this specific case, I would say it would be inappropriate and unjustified to punish GoDaddy just because a CEO of the company, on his own time and his own doing, went and did something questionable. What he did does not represent the company in any professional matter but rather of his own personal accord.

It goes without it being said that the CEO is representative of the company, even though what he did was on his own time there's still a professional role at play regardless, and it may be in the Board of Director's interest to take a fine look at the situation and see the cost-benefits in dismissing him.

But because it's not a company's official stance, but rather the individual's, I don't find it appropriate to switch to another provider. If CAG switches, it should be done purely on financial terms if and only if because it would be too difficult to find a company that is truly "moral", if applicable.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Bingo. I don't have the time or desire to further look into whether a guy shot an elephant for the right reasons or not. OP, do you have an iPhone? If so, would you stop supporting them due to all the Chinese workers getting sick?

I figured this was going to be a thread about Gamestop and how they are a sh***y retailer. Heh, go figure.[/QUOTE]

No I don't have an iPhone, but I'm sure I own some things that came to me at the great personal expense of someone so I'm not off the hook. I admit that. I do my best though to be conscientious about the things I buy. I guess this got to me because there is an innocent animal involved. A CEO getting stinking rich (like Cheapy D) while his/her workers are struggling to make payments on minimum wage, or worse getting laid off, is upsetting (It's happened to me personally twice in two years) and immoral in my opinion, but a CEO being so brazen about murdering an unsuspecting animal is on a different level to me. I can always get a new job, but a delicate ecosystem and populations of endangered species are not so easily repaired.

If I had a plan with GoDaddy or they were a sponsor of my business I would drop them like a four ton elephant.
 
I hear ya, but if the government and the local tribe did indeed support the killing to keep them safe, then all he did was fill a void that someone else would have. Does this mean the blood is also on the hands of the villagers and government? Should we cut funding for AIDS prevention and health care until we figure out who exactly approved the slaying? It just strikes me as a "pick your battles" situation. If this is the worst thing a CEO from a multi-billion dollar company does all year, I'd be satisfied.
 
[quote name='GreatRedDragon']A CEO getting stinking rich (like Cheapy D) while his/her workers are struggling to make payments on minimum wage, or worse getting laid off, is upsetting (It's happened to me personally twice in two years) and immoral in my opinion[/QUOTE]

Every CEO of every company tries to get stinking rich - that's why you become CEO! Are all CEOs immoral? That's crazy talk!
 
[quote name='M-PG71C']Here's the problem: A corporation consists of a multitude of people, both moral and immoral (if that's even possible given a corporation is not an individual with a conscious but rather a conglomeration of people).

In other words, I'm sure for every positive action a corporation does there's a negative one. There's just way too many injustices/rightful doings to list. In my opinion, in this specific case, I would say it would be inappropriate and unjustified to punish GoDaddy just because a CEO of the company, on his own time and his own doing, went and did something questionable. What he did does not represent the company in any professional matter but rather of his own personal accord.

It goes without it being said that the CEO is representative of the company, even though what he did was on his own time there's still a professional role at play regardless, and it may be in the Board of Director's interest to take a fine look at the situation and see the cost-benefits in dismissing him.

But because it's not a company's official stance, but rather the individual's, I don't find it appropriate to switch to another provider. If CAG switches, it should be done purely on financial terms if and only if because it would be too difficult to find a company that is truly "moral", if applicable.[/QUOTE]
The ability of a call-center employee to steer the direction of a company isn't anything close to a CEO. Red flag on the false analogy there. If someone in the file room decided to moonlight as a stripper and have stripper classes, do you think they'd be treated the same way as a CEO?

The problem with this case is that there's a long history of rich pukes going on excursions to "exotic" places to hunt and kill exotic animals. Just because it's "legal" doesn't make it right. There were African tribes that contributed to the slave trade. Does that make slavery ok?
 
yeah I think they really should, the guy travels to africa and brings what looks like a machine gun and then videotapes himself blasting an elephant. His excuse that hes helping the african people sounds flimsy at best.

Even if he is helping them by getting some sick satisfaction from it, its absolutely disgusting. The thing is, animals have as much right to live on this planet as people do.

Whatever your thoughts on hunting for food are, hunting for sport is indefensible imo and is nothing else other than cruel. Animals feel pain and its sadism to willfully inflict it upon intelligent creatures for "fun"

I really think cheapyd should watch that video and really reconsider if making money by supporting THAT guy is worth it. If it is, then thats his choice and if he can sleep fine at night cashing those checks thats on him. He should at least be aware of it tho.
 
I voted yes before reading. After reading, I decide no. He wanted to shoot a fucking elephant, and he was nice enough to kill one that was causing problems.
 
I'm still bitter that all my old wrestling videos are edited to hell and back because of the fucking WWF, so wildlife can go fuck itself.

/sortakidding.
 
[quote name='camoor']Can't take PETA seriously on anything. They are full of it.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I'm no fan of PETA and in fact I think that some of the things they do are actually detrimental to their image and to the benefit of animals. Whenever PETA gets brought in on an issue I go :roll:.

The more I think about it the more I feel like I may have been too rash with my reaction, and maybe instantly dropping GoDaddy as a sponsor isn't the right move, but I think Cheapy should still consider the fact that when his listeners/visitors purchase from GoDaddy, this is the kind of activity that they're funding. If he doesn't have a problem with that then I can't fault him for it, but I'm comfortable knowing that I will never be a contributor to this.

The question of whether it was okay because the elephant was causing a problem or because the villagers said it was okay is irrelevant. Yes it was causing a problem but as one of the articles I linked to in my OP clearly laid out, killing it was not the only solution. This is after all an endangered species, again which is part of a fragile ecosystem. Instead of killing it willy nilly, simple steps could have been taken to ensure that it never would have come around. Just because the government says it okay doesn't mean that it's right. Our own government (in the U.S.) used to say it was all right to keep slaves. Did that makes it right? Many laws still exist in parts of the world which stem from this medieval notion that might makes right and it sickens and saddens me that there are still people in the world who think that a "problem" should be solved by murdering the creature that's causing it.
 
[quote name='GreatRedDragon'] The question of whether it was okay because the elephant was causing a problem or because the villagers said it was okay is irrelevant. Yes it was causing a problem but as one of the articles I linked to in my OP clearly laid out, killing it was not the only solution. This is after all an endangered species, again which is part of a fragile ecosystem.

Our own government (in the U.S.) used to say it was all right to keep slaves. Did that makes it right? Many laws still exist in parts of the world which stem from this medieval notion that might makes right and it sickens and saddens me that there are still people in the world who think that a "problem" should be solved by murdering the creature that's causing it.[/QUOTE]

No, I'd say it's extremely relevant. He didn't break the law. He did something that you find incredibly offensive. If Cheapy doesn't think it's bad enough to warrant canning them as a sponsor, will those who are irate about this stop visiting and supporting CAG? If not, does that make you a hypocrite?

Killing it was not the only solution, but in a country where resources are scarce, it was certainly the quickest and least expensive. Maybe they could've created a campaign where the international community could donate money to relocate an elephant, but while they wait, that elephant is still causing problems.

As far as the slavery reference...seriously...you're going to compare institutional slavery to the GoDaddy CEO shooting an elephant with the consent of the local population and government? Egad. I'm going to go rub one out to Danica Patrick in a leather body suit.
 
They could have tranquilized the thing and moved it somewhere else. That doesn't take some big international effort.
 
eh elephants are an endagered species and their habit is being destroyed / encroached upon. Excuse them for not respecting property laws and eating food because they are hungry.

seriously its a poor excuse when there are more humane alternatives than gunning it down. Did you guys watch the video? did you find it cool? did it remind you of all the fun times you had in fps games?

seriously if you dont find it offensive and cruel somewhere along the way you lost your humanity.

if you think gunning down animals that feel pain for fun is ok you are part of the problem
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='retrad']eh elephants are an endagered species and their habit is being destroyed / encroached upon. Excuse them for not respecting property laws and eating food because they are hungry.

seriously its a poor excuse when there are more humane alternatives than gunning it down with a machine gun. Did you guys watch the video? did you find it cool? did it remind you of all the fun times you had in fps games?

seriously if you dont find it offensive and cruel somewhere along the way you lost your humanity.

if you think gunning down animals that feel pain with a machine gun for fun is ok you are part of the problem[/QUOTE]

Didn't watch the video because the explanation in the article cured my curiosity. It sounds like you've got a bigger issue with the principle of guns and hunting than I do, so I'm guessing that's the difference in our biased views.

It seems like 64% of the people don't feel it was egregious enough to drop GoDaddy as a sponsor, so I suppose you have the answer to your question.
 
"I spend a few weeks in Zimbabwe each year helping the farmers deal with problem elephants. The people there have very little, many die each year from starvation and one of the problems they have is the elephants, of which there are thousands and thousands, that trash many of their fields destroying the crops."

"I wonder how many of those people from change.org will be on their way to Zimbabwe with bee hives and chili pepper covered string during the next harvest. My guess is none, I also would guess that none have ever been there. Should the folks at change.org go to Zimbabwe with their bee hives and chili pepper lines, my guess is they'll return with a tusk in their ass and some very pissed off villages and farmers in their wake."
-Bob Parsons (CEO GoDaddy) :lol:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382964,00.asp

I kinda get where Bob is coming from. If Change.org and PETA don't like how he's doing things, then I think they should go over to Zimbabwe and solve the problem by moving the elephants themselves. The people will be happy that no more people or crops are being trampled and the elephants will get to live where ever it is that they want to put them.

As an American who lives in a house with a pantry full of food, who has a Playstation 3 and his own car, it's kind of hard for me to fully understand their plight. (They only elephant I've ever seen was at the zoo! I don't know what I would do if I saw one in my backyard.)

I know people are worried about unemployment in the US, but compare that to Zimbabwe which has hit 90% unemployment before and add that to the fact that the average laborer makes 60 cents a month (I have more than that in my car). It's just really bad over there with no clear solution. http://www.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/03/31/tendai.biti.zimbabwe/

I know people are trying to point out better alternatives, but these people don't have time to wait around for someone to transport 5,000-13,000 pound elephants or whatever. This is a matter of life and death and killing the problem elephant(s) is the easiest and quickest solution for them. I just can't fault them for doing what they have to do to survive. However, if PETA and Change.org are this pissed off, then I hope it gives them proper motivation to actually do something about it. PETA switching providers isn't going to save any elephants or people.
 
[quote name='berzirk']No, I'd say it's extremely relevant. He didn't break the law. He did something that you find incredibly offensive. If Cheapy doesn't think it's bad enough to warrant canning them as a sponsor, will those who are irate about this stop visiting and supporting CAG? If not, does that make you a hypocrite?

Killing it was not the only solution, but in a country where resources are scarce, it was certainly the quickest and least expensive. Maybe they could've created a campaign where the international community could donate money to relocate an elephant, but while they wait, that elephant is still causing problems.

As far as the slavery reference...seriously...you're going to compare institutional slavery to the GoDaddy CEO shooting an elephant with the consent of the local population and government? Egad. I'm going to go rub one out to Danica Patrick in a leather body suit.[/QUOTE]

Hmm. This is turning into an interesting debate.

Let's say I'm vehemently against the U.S. Navy. If I still continued to listen to the CAGcast a couple years ago, would that make me a hypocrite? Or if I worked for some big publisher who is trying to shut down Gamestop and other used game sellers would I be a hypocrite if I listened to the CAGcast during the time of their sponsorship of the show? I don't think so. In the same way I don't consider myself a hypocrite if I listen to the show because I happen to enjoy it. Like I said, I'll never give any of my business to GoDaddy so I don't see any of the hypocrisy. Add to that the fact that, based on everything I know about the CAGcast crew from listening to them for a few years now, I would be willing to bet that none of them condone Parsons' actions. As long as they don't push some elephant killing agenda onto their show, I don't mind listening to them for their informative and entertainment value.

I could be wrong about our three fellas, though. If I am then I am willing to admit it.

As for the slavery comparison, I merely meant to point out that just because a government and its citizens declare something to be legal, doesn't mean that it's moral. So consider this: do you think that smoking marijuana is immoral? If so, then do you think it's immoral for the government of Amsterdam to make it legal? And if not, then do you think it's right for the U.S. government to constantly work so hard to keep it illegal?

Even though killing the elephant solved the problem right away, if more long-term, humane methods are not put into play, then the next elephant that wanders into what some villagers think is the wrong area, it's just going to get killed, and the beat will go on. However, if a non-lethal practice is enacted the elephants will eventually learn what area to avoid and they can go on their merry way staying with their families/herds and keeping the ecosystem in balance.

But I digress. That's a separate discussion and it seems pretty clear that whether to keep GoDaddy's sponsorship is at Cheapy's discretion. I'm certainly not trying to influence his decision one way or the other. I just thought it would spark some good conversation. And it did! So I win!\\:D/
 
[quote name='KillerRamen']"I spend a few weeks in Zimbabwe each year helping the farmers deal with problem elephants. The people there have very little, many die each year from starvation and one of the problems they have is the elephants, of which there are thousands and thousands, that trash many of their fields destroying the crops."

"I wonder how many of those people from change.org will be on their way to Zimbabwe with bee hives and chili pepper covered string during the next harvest. My guess is none, I also would guess that none have ever been there. Should the folks at change.org go to Zimbabwe with their bee hives and chili pepper lines, my guess is they'll return with a tusk in their ass and some very pissed off villages and farmers in their wake."
-Bob Parsons (CEO GoDaddy) :lol:
[/QUOTE]

There's one major difference here. The people who run and work for nonprofit environmentalist and animal rights groups don't have nearly the disposable income that CEO's do. To counter Parsons' argument, I would bet that if someone volunteering for WWF or Greenpeace were given a multi-million dollar salary, that they would go over and solve the problem in a humane way without thinking twice about it. He thinks he's doing some great thing for the locals and their crops but I seriously doubt that he cares about them at all. He just wants an excuse to go shoot something so he can most likely hang its tusks in his living room. I would call into question the notion that he's doing this for the benefit of the villagers.
 
Well, I watched the video, it wasn't really that bad, I mean, it was an animal getting killed which I've seen before. I think one thing that surprised me is how many people showed up to eat it, at worst you can say at least it didn't go to waste.
 
There are better ways to help the poor then shooting elephants. I don't buy that excuse for a second. If you do you are a fucking idiot.

GoDaddy is a shitty scam and it doesn't surprise me that the CEO is a complete scumbag.

However most CEOs are complete scumbags. They're just generally better at PR then this fucktard.

http://nodaddy.com/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top