No thoughts on the subject?

Not sure exactly what you're asking. Are you saying that's someone why should be the target of a boycott? Can you shed some light on how to create the rule on when you should boycott and when you don't have to?

@JeffMurray I'm more trying to point out the difficulty of having a rule. It seems that seriously offensive people are capable of creating beautiful work which we would be poorer for ignoring. Personally I like the idea of them not profiting from it, but that really only works at a personal level. I pick and choose who I will boycott but I don't have a general rule. I still listen to michael jackson but avoid movies by weinstein.

@Cyklone I think that's where most people are at. For people like me and @Fernapple, it just doesn't work. Having tensions in my beliefs eats away at me.

@JeffMurray life must be very stressful for you at times I fail to see a lot of congruence in human behaviour, but I applaud your attempts to make sense of it

@Cyklone You're right on both counts there; life is the worst and I loathe how inscrutable and unpredictable humans are.

@JeffMurray It does keep life interesting

@Cyklone In the same way that IBS is "interesting".

These are his thoughts:

I don't know that I necessarily understand the distinction you're making between beliefs and ethics/morals.
I don't have any Carl's Jr. near me, but all I can think of when I hear it is, "brought to you by Carl's Jr." from Idiocracy.

@JeffMurray An ethic, or moral (they are rather close in nature), produces an action. That action is usually assumed to stem from a belief. That is a determined structure from which morality flows, and ethics defines, which explains your existence. Zen is an example,

@rainmanjr I'm still not seeing the distinction you're making between beliefs about what's right an wrong and ethics/morals.
Your latest comment brings up additional questions, too. While your ethics and morals should inform your actions, that is not always (or in some people, even regularly) the case. I do things that I believe are morally wrong, not sure why. I'm also unsure why the thing most important to me is consistency, but it is.

@JeffMurray Let's try an analogy (which I usually suck at making so don't hope for too much): Beliefs are the foundation for our house. Inside this house we will make our moral/ethical determinations which will enforce our foundation. We are largely enforcing that foundation for our own house because the foundations of others do not share ingredients so are unequalized. Our morals/ethics then become the product which puts into motion those determinations. The air, inside our house, is no longer only composed of our foundation's ingredients, however. It is contaminated by random particles which we observe or are informed of. Therefore, they are flexible and might be lifted from moral/ethic but not from belief. Belief will hold that the circumstance doesn't change the original foundation's cement.
That any better? I'm high an awful lot (right now, TBH) so could be making a distinction between terms that doesn't exist. I'm told that I can stretch a metaphor. LOL.

@rainmanjr Yeah, I'm lost. I'm sorry. Just not seeing why moral/ethical determinations aren't your beliefs (e.g. I believe it is immoral to legislate control over women's bodies. I believe it is unethical to torture prisoners.)

@JeffMurray I also believe it is unethical but humans are not always ethical. More directly to our nation torture was against our own best interest but Jr41 and Dick didn't much care about us. God and money were at stake. Peace, my friend.

So that's one of the questions I posed. Does the boycott last until death at which point the contribution can be enjoyed?
What if there was trust set up that continued to be funded by royalties after death that carried on whatever behavior was the reason for the boycott? Would you have to continue the boycott?
What if the heirs felt the same way as the boycotted person (e.g. they also donated to anti-gay/black etc. groups) the boycott would need to remain intact?
What if we went in the reverse direction? Say there was a medical researcher that developed a medication that cured Type I Diabetes, but we found out he molested children. Would the rules for boycotting dictate that we refuse to cure our diabetes so he didn't get the proceeds?
Or what if a boycotted person was donating a percentage of their profits to children's cancer care and research? Is there a non-100% percentage that would be sufficient cause to not boycott? If R. Kelly donated 99.5% of all the money he made to a good cause like that, then what? Should all those kids suffer to keep the half percent out of his pocket?
You see why I'm struggling with this?

@JeffMurray I do indeed, and in the meantime there’s a risk that much good and respectable art may be boycotted. Sometimes trusts or estates are established into which royalties continue to flow, but as long as the perpetrator is in the grave I have no issues with that.

@p-nullifidian Even if the money still went to the bad cause that made you start the boycott in the first place?

@JeffMurray The boycott is NOT against a bad “cause.” Rather, it is against a bad individual who might further enrich himself from royalties. Once the bad actor is removed from the picture (i.e., is dead), he can no longer benefit. Does this make sense?

@p-nullifidian So in this example I was referring to something like Chick-fil-A's owner's funding of anti-gay groups and lobbyists. If the owner were to die, but the heirs or the estate still continued to donate money to that cause, the death of that original bad actor would seem to be inconsequential at that point.

@JeffMurray I understand your question now. I had drilled down on the artist vs. art question. My apologies.

Boycotting causes or corporations is relatively easy to do, and I do it all the time. I will never set foot in a Chick-fil-A or a Hobby Lobby, and needless to say I’m never gonna buy one of those damn pillows! As I learn of unacceptable behavior (in my opinion) on the part of a company or its CEO (e.g., campaigning against gay marriage, suing to withhold contraception in a health plan, or supporting the Big Lie), I make sure not to patronize their establishments or products.

You think everyone would be able to live in their own home safely if we lived in an anarchy?
That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, but thanks for the comment.

@JeffMurray you said boycott. "...can you just boycott selectively based on how much it will suit or hinder your needs? Does the contribution to you personally or society at large allow you to ignore a boycott you'd..."

That is the area of your topic I was addressing

@Word I see, just curious if you thought that could actually work...

@JeffMurray wouldn't know unless we got enough people to do it

@Word No, I'm saying that the inherent awfulness of humans now unbridled by governmental authority wouldn't invade your little brick home and destroy your dream state?

@JeffMurray yes, I understand your point there. No doubt the animalistic nature of most of homo sapiens would make it impossible to have a truely good. Peaceful. civil society.

@JeffMurray most homo sapiens are selfish, self centered pathetic for goodness of a large soc6group working cohesively together for the over all good of such society.

This is the philosophy behind capitalism slavery. It's not by physical brute force. But rather out of necessity, force people to at least work for themselves to provide their basic needs while "those in powet" do somethings to benefit the society as a whole. Yes, those in power like to make sure they have cream of the crop life styles of being multi millionaire and billionaires government officials.

I may not have explained myself well. I'm taking about keeping my beliefs logically consistent with each other. For example, I dying think it's logically consistent to condemn Michael Vick for dog fighting (no one actually believes that punishment was because of the gambling) while at the same time torturing the fuck out of chickens, pigs, and cows on a daily basis by supporting the commercial meat industry. So the question for me is how can I set up parameters for boycotts that won't leave me contradicting myself?

I got rid of my Facebook 5 years ago and I advocate everyone else so the same for so many reasons, but that's another topic.

@JeffMurray

I think you’re the only person who can answer that. Takes a lot of soul-searching (so-to-speak). Resolving internal philosophical conflicts just takes a lot of pondering and reading. And talking, like this.

@skado Well, there are some brilliant minds here, and I think I'm going to need to hear different ideas and bounce some of mine off people. Hopefully, together, we can come up with something.
Thanks for the comments.

I did not know that about our creator. It kind of bothers me but also addresses JeffMurray's question. After all, I'm here and commenting. I have a page on Z's Rag as well. Both serve specific needs which keeps me connected to them so I am. Author Mark Manson states that beliefs and morals are fluid because they relate to questions of the moment, or instance, and other factors always affect their dictates on us. They get settled by the Emotional Brain, rather than the Thinking Brain (as one expects), because nearly everything governing dogma is. I tend to reject dogma but hold a respect for the spirit of an idea.

@JeffMurray I do not think that you can ever get to a point where, as you put it, you have "beliefs logically consistent with each other." Any more than you can have final truth, or total knowledge of everything. But that is not the point: "beliefs logically consistent with each other", final truth and knowledge, may be an unattainable ends, but they can still be and are, a goals, or targets to aim for. Which is perhaps their greatest value, because if you ever believed that you had attained them, (absolutism) or stopped believing that they existed as a hypothetical target, (relativism) then you would stop progressing, no longer move forward and no longer have any reason to explore. A dead, passive, dull and aimless none-life. And sadly a life of arrogant dogmatism, without any empathy for the rest of humanity, who you would be forced to regard as failed and lesser beings.

@Fernapple All very true. So while I can't reconcile beliefs on every single topic ever, I can actively attempt to prevent holding two beliefs that contradict one another. I can avoid being the asshole that condemns cock fighting while cutting off their beaks, hanging them upside-down, slitting their throats, and dipping them in scalding water while they're still alive before they get turned into the chicken sandwich I'm enjoying.

@JeffMurray Sounds good to me. It is a big issue for me too, since being on the border of the autistic spectrum, I can not do that very handy thing, that most people seem to have little trouble with, cognitive dissonance. It annoys me to death, and I have a compultion if I find myself holding contraditions, to work away at it , no mater what the cost.