Microsoft hates Freedom and Democracy!!!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by 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.

Everyone voted for their own interest, without regard for anyone elses interest? And you know this how?

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?

They may, or may not. No I wouldn't agree with them. I just told you that I agree with the other option.

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'.

That's completely pointless.

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.

You just pwned yourself again. Earlier I said that people can overcome their biases and you disagreed.

[Asher]

I feel like I'm in philosophy class again, arguing whether it's ethical to save a burning baby. And there's the philosophy students arguing that it's ethical to let the baby's choose its own fate...and everyone else just says collectively, "WTF?"

The pure pointlessness of it all boggles my mind.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

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.

So much attitude, so little sense..what a pity.

First of all, you have to be in LaLa land to think all shareholders have a choice in corporate actions. But I already to be there.

I fully understand the fiduciary responsiblity of the corporate leadership (do I need to define fiduciary for you?) to shareholders.

But while doing something that is unprofitable breaks the shareholder trust, not expanding as rapidly into new markets in order not to act unethically is different, because MS will remain profitable whether it decides to make these sales or NOT.

Perhaps I need to hone my argument skills like Aggies.

You are unethical!

Did I win?

The dunce cap certainly.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


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

Cause I have called people worse, but in 4 years, I have never been banned.

Its called a proven track record.

[Asher]

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?

1) They make Xboxes for use around the world there for cheap
2) Ever heard of the term "bargaining chip"?

And I understand Aggie's claim that if the price Microsoft must pay for doing business in China is to abide by the communist goverment's laws, then they should leave the market.

My point is that's impractical. Microsoft gains nothing from that. Shareholders get pissed. China remains unchanged either way.

Lose-Lose situation, all because some idealistic philosopher wants to take a moral stand -- for what?

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Cause I have called people worse, but in 4 years, I have never been banned.

Its called a proven track record.

That just goes on to prove my point.

^^^^^ Did you see that Ming, MarkG, UR? ^^^^^

I got banned for FAR less than that, repeatedly.

Chinese censorship rampant on Poly.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

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.

From the article:

Microsoft's MSN Spaces site is run by its joint venture partner, the state-backed Shanghai Alliance Investment Ltd. Microsoft said people who used its MSN Spaces service were required to abide by its code of conduct.

But of course the issue is NOT an economics one. Its an ethical one. Aggie made the point that MS should stand up to the Chinese and get out of this market in China as long as China has those laws.

To argue against an ethical arguement, you need to make an ethical counterargument.

Or you could have stayed out of the thread entirely, but anything by Aggie is obviously too strong a bait for you.

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

Oh, didn;t know your skin was so delicate..

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
So much attitude, so little sense..what a pity.

First of all, you have to be in LaLa land to think all shareholders have a choice in corporate actions. But I already to be there.

I fully understand the fiduciary responsiblity of the corporate leadership (do I need to define fiduciary for you?) to shareholders.

But while doing something that is unprofitable breaks the shareholder trust, not expanding as rapidly into new markets in order not to act unethically is different, because MS will remain profitable whether it decides to make these sales or NOT.

Completely untrue -- such an assertion shows a massive ignorance on the current computer software landscape.

China is a major proponent of Linux and is trying to spread it. Linux would destroy MS' main source of profits.

Leaving the Chinese market gives Linux free reign in the biggest and most important market in the future.

You've no idea what you're proposing -- Microsoft leaving China would be catastrophic to Microsoft's longterm growth and viability. Most of Microsoft's investors would likely know this, and on such an announcement would think Microsoft had lost its mind.

It would do massive amounts of damage to the company.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher

That just goes on to prove my point.

^^^^^ Did you see that Ming, MarkG, UR? ^^^^^

I got banned for FAR less than that, repeatedly.

Chinese censorship rampant on Poly.

Nah. I've probably been banned more than you have and for pettier stuff.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

That just goes on to prove my point.

^^^^^ Did you see that Ming, MarkG, UR? ^^^^^

I got banned for FAR less than that, repeatedly.

Chinese censorship rampant on Poly.

And you have also done far worse.

The authorities look more closely at repeat offenders than people with "clean" records.

You have only your past to blame.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

It's called common sense. China doesn't particularly like criticism of their government. If a company refuses to sell one product based on their criticism of the government, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize they'll probably be hostile if that company wants to sell other goods.

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.

The term slave labor doesn't just apply to prisoners, but also sweatshops where the labors are held in an form of indentured servitude position where they make so low and are charged for room and board, they owe the company money.

Here is a fun article about it (quoting the UPI):

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/uk/article_1003086.php/Charity_wristbands_made_by__%60slave_labor%60

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.

And that doesn't help support the regime?

If business is doing good in China, the regime is doing good.

so its not just the US not buying from those who sell to China. So your annalysis is incomplete.

No, then it fits into the other two. The US can say that we won't buy from you if you sell to China or they should let them sell.

I find the arms embargo amusing seeing who we've supplied with weapons in the past.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
To argue against an ethical arguement, you need to make an ethical counterargument.

Or you could have stayed out of the thread entirely, but anything by Aggie is obviously too strong a bait for you.

Completely untrue.

My entire point was whether Aggie found it ethical or not is irrelevant. My entire point was this is business.

This entire discussion, at its core, is about business. This is not a debate about ethics. Nobody gives a sh*t if a bunch of artsy nobodies think it's ethical or not. Nobody gives a sh*t if I think it's ethical or not.

What matters in the world of business is performance. Microsoft needs to perform to satisfy their shareholders. That's their job.

It is absurd to ask them to withdraw from China.

It is absurd to try to hold an argument to debate the ethics about this, when it really doesn't matter.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

1) They make Xboxes for use around the world there for cheap
2) Ever heard of the term "bargaining chip"?

And I understand Aggie's claim that if the price Microsoft must pay for doing business in China is to abide by the communist goverment's laws, then they should leave the market.

My point is that's impractical. Microsoft gains nothing from that. Shareholders get pissed. China remains unchanged either way.

Lose-Lose situation, all because some idealistic philosopher wants to take a moral stand -- for what?

And that is your opinion.

For anyone to claim that Aggies ethical argument has been pwned by an opinion is absurd. Fine, you think MS being in the market is more important. Whatever.

That does not translate to "pwnage" in any sense of the word.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
And you have also done far worse.

The authorities look more closely at repeat offenders than people with "clean" records.

You have only your past to blame.

I'm a repeat offender because I get banned for calling people "clueless". You call me witless and dumbass, then admit to saying far worse things many times over 4 years, and you don't get banned.

Go figure that the guy that gets banned for "clueless" has more offenses on record than the guy who gets away with saying far worse.

It's a related issue anyway. UR bans me when it's convenient for his (and his People's) arguments.

There's an ethical issue for you. Now go take a moral stand and start a thread in the community forum about his censorship tactics, which are clearly unethical. In fact, you should withdraw from the site in protest!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Everyone voted for their own interest, without regard for anyone elses interest? And you know this how?

Anyone who knows anything about politics knows this. Bush's tax increases were good for the country in the long run, but people lost their jobs and out Bush went.

They may, or may not. No I wouldn't agree with them. I just told you that I agree with the other option.

Uh huh, and the other people have a good point. Which is why the question isn't that cut and dry.

You just pwned yourself again. Earlier I said that people can overcome their biases and you disagreed.

If you actually think that people admitting they were wrong because they were faced with facts they couldn't refute because they jumped in with their biased views before finding out everything shows that they OVERCAME their biases then you are beyond hope!

If anything it further solidifies that people are a product of their biases. They'll only admit wrongness if they've been blatently caught.