There's no new info.
They exclude firearms companies. They do not exclude anti-gun companies. That is not neutral.
If I exclude no one, I am neutral. If I exclude women and not men, I am not neutral.
It doesn't matter how many ways you can say it.
If you can choose A and B and you choose both or neither, you are neutral. If you exclude one and not the other, you are not neutral.
That's logic. Exclusion of one party over another is not neutral.
neu·tral
/ˈn(y)o͞otrəl/
Adjective
Not helping or supporting either of two opposing sides, esp. countries at war; impartial.
Noun
An impartial and uninvolved country or person.
Synonyms
neuter - indifferent - impartial
Notice how there's no mention that excluding (or accepting) one party and not another is "neutral". It's actually the exact OPPOSITE of neutral.
Quote:
|
As regards guns, they take no proceeds from any side of the gun debate, not pro or anti as has been said here about a million times, and that makes them neutral as regards guns. What would you have them do that's reasonable that would convince you that they were neutral about guns? Or is being neutral the same as being anti to you?
|
You are inserting intent in their words where there is none. There is NO MENTION of anti-gun companies. The Brady Bunch is not a "firearms company". That's just silly.
It's obvious what they should do. If they want to be neutral, they accept donations from gun companies AND anti-gun companies.
They don't exclude both. They don't accept both. Either of those choices would be neutral. Excluding one without the other is the exact OPPOSITE of neutral.
I have nothing more to say on the matter. There's no winning an argument about neutrality when the plain sense definition of the word is in question.