Microsoft hates Freedom and Democracy!!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

And their own happiness is insignificant, and irrelevent to the discussion when it's not even about them.

Now, their own happiness is not insignificant or irrelevent. It is everything. People care about their own happiness, not everyone's. Therefore it is valid to ask which happiness you refer to.

Since you won't acknowledge you pwnage on the equality being an end, I'd hope you'd understand that who's happiness is quite an important question if you say happiness is an end. Especially since you haven't answered my question as to whether it is better for a vast majority to be very happy (and small small minority to be slightly unhappy) or for everyone to be just barely happy.

Using your own experience only will force you to come to very ****ed up conclusions.

Well, I guess we've figured out your problems .

Using the human experience will generally allow you to make much better conclusions.

And people know every human's experience how....? You can't even begin to comprehend the experiences of every human. Just your own and you may be aware that there are the experiences of others around you (though using that experience without using your own to analyze ain't going to work).

How would you know whether they are divorced from their bias?

When you see a pattern of beliefs in conversation and posts, you can quickly discern the biases of a person. Though my biases come into effect in ascertaining it. You can see how they are divorced from their biases from how often they move away from their base position.

Using this site for analysis, I'd have to say Spiffor is prehaps the closest thing we have to unbiased, but even his biases spill through. They have to. It's how he makes sense of the world and how he knows society around him. You can't divorce him of that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
His anti-MS bias drives part of his opinion, but it does nothing to undermine the basic logic of it, ie. corporations should have some sort of ethics.

And that was the entire extent of his argument.

Plus he has also noted the difference between basic goods with no political consequences, and technology aimed at the control of information. I agree with Agathon that there is a fundamental difference between making socks in China and selling the Chinese technology making it eaiser for them to crack down on dissent.

Here's the problem -- you're talking out of your ass! Go figure.

MS isn't selling China technology to make it easier to crack down on dissent.

Microsoft has a blogging service, MSN Spaces. In order for it to operate, they need to forbid certain words from being posted, as per Communist law.

They aren't selling China anything to help them censor people.

Read the thread, know the topic, then type out your predictable, baseless, and ornery responses.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

Err. No?

They could ban Microsoft products from China if they don't modify their products.

And yet, this response does not actualy respond to the point. Your lack of a good liberal education is starting to show.

You can't seriously compare an ice cream maker to Microsoft, are you?

That's like comparing a tricycle to a Formula One car.

NO, dumbass. BUt I can show someone with nice liberal ethics-based values can know about Business, which was your claim, or do I need to quote you sdo you can remember what it is you said??

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
And yet, this response does not actualy respond to the point. Your lack of a good liberal education is starting to show.

The really funny part is your entire argument is based off your inability to comprehend the actual situation.

Microsoft is not selling China technology to censor people.

NO, dumbass. BUt I can show someone with nice liberal ethics-based values can know about Business, which was your claim, or do I need to quote you sdo you can remember what it is you said??

Okay -- now he's called me witless and a dumbass.

If I'm going to get banned for saying "clueless", in a non-communist society you would also be banned for this...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

Own goal?

That's why Aggie's claim of "it's unethical" falls short.

I think it's pretty obvious that if MS refused to sell products in China, they would make less money. What else do I need to do to back that up?

Stating your opinion boy is not the same as making an argument.

Its obvious that you think that the sole repsonsiblity of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders.

That's an OPINION

If you want to make it an argument, you need to do something more than just re-state your opnion over and over like some imbecilic broken record.

You have to craft an arguement about why the sole reponsibility of a Corporation is to make money for its shareholders. That is something that can obviously be done, and its obvious YOU have NOT done it in this thread.

Care to try?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What law would MS be breaking by not selling their software in China, oh great legal expert?

What if MS sold their software without adding China's specifications? MS wants to sell their software to Chinese people, which is not unethical to anyone's standards. The law says they have to add blocking software. If they sold it without adding that software, China would most likely tell MS to take a hike. It isn't unethical to sell to the Chinese people, but if they did it without blocking, they'd violate Chinese law. Why should the Chinese people suffer without any software at all?

Furthermore, if MS said it was not selling software in China because of their horrid human rights, how receptive do you think China would be to having that company's X-Box factories in the country? Not very.

corporations should have some sort of ethics. Plus he has also noted the difference between basic goods with no political consequences, and technology aimed at the control of information. I agree with Agathon that there is a fundamental difference between making socks in China and selling the Chinese technology making it eaiser for them to crack down on dissent.

Bull. There is no difference. In both cases you are supporting the regime. Who do you think will be making the socks after all? In fact, it may be more objectionable in manufacturing items in China because there probably will be slave labor somewhere down the line.

Another aspect of this, of course, is the arms embargo. The US does huge trade with China, but does not let our defense contractors sell China guns. Would you claim this is a nutty policy given our other trade with China?

Yes and No. No for a couple reasons. China is our competitor on the world stage, so instead of our contractors selling our secrets, only we should have that right. Secondly, as a purchaser, we have the right to tell contractors that we won't purchase from you if you sell to our competitor (US government isn't subject to anti-trust ).

Yes, in cases where we have arms dealers who don't deal with the US. Sell them rifles, I see no probs with that.

[Asher]

Summary:

Aggie: Microsoft is evil for conducting business in China, where the Communists are forcing them to censor keywords from blog postings on MS' service.

Asher: Microsoft is following local laws. China will censor with or without Microsoft selling its products in China. Microsoft gains nothing but loses a lot by not complying with the law.

Aggie: But that is unethical! Businesses should be ethical!

Asher: I think a lot of Apple's business practices are unethical as well!

Aggie: Exactly!

Asher: Okay, but MS gains nothing by leaving the Chinese market.

Gepap: God your dumbass, Aggie is whiping the floor with you! Can't you see his logic! He clearly says it is unethical to follow communist laws.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

The really funny part is your entire argument is based off your inability to comprehend the actual situation.

Microsoft is not selling China technology to censor people.

Actually, yes they are. China wants to make sure it can censor certain words and phrases. MS has decided that as the prize they are willing to make software that does just that. BY doing that, they do help China censor. That other companies might also be willing to help China censor in order to make MOney in China does not actually change the nature of MS's action.

Okay -- now he's called me witless and a dumbass.

If I'm going to get banned for saying "clueless", in a non-communist society you would also be banned for this...

Actually, you got banned for your distinct lack of charm and class. Deal with it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And their own happiness is insignificant, and irrelevent to the discussion when it's not even about them.

Now, their own happiness is not insignificant or irrelevent. It is everything. People care about their own happiness, not everyone's. Therefore it is valid to ask which happiness you refer to.

We are not concerned about your individual happiness when discussing issues that affect everyone. If you want to start a thread regarding your personal life we will all be more than happy to be concerned ONLY with your happiness.

Since you won't acknowledge you pwnage on the equality being an end, I'd hope you'd understand that who's happiness is quite an important question if you say happiness is an end. Especially since you haven't answered my question as to whether it is better for a vast majority to be very happy (and small small minority to be slightly unhappy) or for everyone to be just barely happy.

The first one seems better.

Using your own experience only will force you to come to very ****ed up conclusions.

Well, I guess we've figured out your problems .

Using the human experience will generally allow you to make much better conclusions.

And people know every human's experience how....?

History. Asking them.

When you see a pattern of beliefs in conversation and posts, you can quickly discern the biases of a person. Though my biases come into effect in ascertaining it. You can see how they are divorced from their biases from how often they move away from their base position.

You mean like admiting they were wrong?

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Stating your opinion boy is not the same as making an argument.

Its obvious that you think that the sole repsonsiblity of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders.

Hmm.

No, if you understood how a public company worked, you would get that.

Shareholders own the company, the company does what they want. Shareholders want return on investment.

It's simple, even a government employee could understand it.

That's an OPINION

Perhaps I need to hone my argument skills like Aggies.

You are unethical!

Did I win?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, you got banned for your distinct lack of charm and class. Deal with it.

So you're safe...why, exactly?

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, yes they are.

Don't you understand economics?

The buyer isn't China. China isn't buying anything from Microsoft here. Ergo, Microsoft isn't selling anything to China here.

Actually, you got banned for your distinct lack of charm and class. Deal with it.

As opposed to you, oozing charm and class in this thread, throwing out insults like there's no tomorrow...

[DinoDoc]

/me offers popcorn to Boris

[Imran Siddiqui]

We are not concerned about your individual happiness when discussing issues that affect everyone.

Sure we are. Because they affect ME, so I'm concerned if I'll be happy. Look at any election, Kid. People vote on their personal happiness. It doesn't matter if a policy was best for the country, if they aren't doing well, they'll vote for the other guy.

The first one seems better.

But what about the people who are unhappy? Don't you think they'd say they'd rather have everyone barely happy and if you cared about happiness, you'd agree with them?

History. Asking them.

HISTORY?! ASKING THEM?!

What history and asking people have shown is that there is a wide, wide, wide variety of what people consider the 'human experience'.

You mean like admiting they were wrong?

No, I don't mean like admitting they were wrong. In fact, most people have to admit they were wrong because they jumped in with their biases and later facts that they couldn't refute were shown to them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What if MS sold their software without adding China's specifications? MS wants to sell their software to Chinese. The law says they have to add blocking software. If they sold it without adding that software, China would most likely tell MS to take a hike.

Which would make sense if MS decided to illegaly sell their software in China. I seriously doubt MS would do that, and Aggies point is that MS should opt out of the Chinese software market if putting filters is the prize one must pay. What does any of that have to do with MS setting up a factory to manufacture home electronics for domestic Chinese usage and export?

Furthermore, if MS said it was not selling software in China because of their horrid human rights, how receptive do you think China would be to having that company's X-Box factories in the country? Not very.

Ah, the return of the BAM. Why would China turn down MS and it chosing to make it's Xboxes in China even if MS decided to stay out of the software market in China? After all, other companies would be lining up to fill that hole?

Your opnion of what China might do, lacking any solid evidence, is not a particularly valid arguement.

Bull. There is no difference. In both cases you are supporting the regime. Who do you think will be making the socks after all? In fact, it may be more objectionable in manufacturing items in China because there probably will be slave labor somewhere down the line.

Arguement two is pure BAM beyond being highly unlikely, given that China has at least 400 million people willing to do manufacturing and probably 100 Million already doing it, so the likelyhood that prisoners might be used is probabably low.

As for the first point- its probably just as likely thast the sock is being made by a privatetly owned Chinese cmpany or a subsidiary of an international corporation as a Chinese government controlled factory.

Yes and No. No for a couple reasons. China is our competitor on the world stage, so instead of our contractors selling our secrets, only we should have that right. Secondly, as a purchaser, we have the right to tell contractors that we won't purchase from you if you sell to our competitor (US government isn't subject to anti-trust ).

Yes, in cases where we have arms dealers who don't deal with the US. Sell them rifles, I see no probs with that.

Actually, the US government makes it a crime to sell such secrets to China, so its not just the US not buying from those who sell to China. So your annalysis is incomplete.