Microsoft hates Freedom and Democracy!!!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
You should really read more carefully... again... I think you have a very crude understanding of what I am trying to say.

I understand it fine.

I have already given numerous examples. And your assumption that a positive effect must flow from every ethical action is contradicted by a wide variety of examples (such as some posted in this thread by me). After all, it's not permissible to kill someone if someone else is going to kill them anyway no matter what you do.

But a negative effect must flow from every unethical action.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

No, you're exactly right.

And by making the decision to operate in China, they are acting in accordance with their own value.

Case dismissed.

Aggie wants MS to lose billion dollars when nothing would change. It's really that simple.

Uh no.

You are a serial exaggerator, aren't you?

And you've been shown that the principle that underlies your claim is false. How humilating for you. Will you continue with this silly bluster, or will you respond to the actual argument?

[Asher]

And you've been shown that the principle that underlies your claim is false.

Err, what was proven false?

Microsoft exists to serve the interests of its shareholders.
Shareholders want Microsoft to have return on investment.
ROI isn't achieved by making futile political stands with no benefits to the company, or to the Chinese people.

You can keep saying you've proven my claims false all you want, and continue blathering endlessly about why you think it's wrong, but you're an idealist living in the real world.

Grow up.

Multibillion dollar businesses with a responsbility to providing ROI to shareholders are not going to lose billions of dollars over futile political stands with no effect.

Case dismissed...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Err, what was proven false?

The following patently absurd view.

Microsoft exists to serve the interests of its shareholders.
Shareholders want Microsoft to have return on investment.
ROI isn't achieved by making futile political stands with no benefits to the company, or to the Chinese people.

(1) The principles involved in your beliefs commit you to saying that stealing is OK if someone else is going to do it anyway (because no additional harm will accrue and it will benefit you). How any reasonable person could regard that as ethical behaviour is beyond me. You are just trying to make room for profiting from direct collusion in human rights violations.

(2) You seem to believe that making such a stand would be futile. It might be, but according to (1) that does not exonerate Microsoft. Moreover, I don't think it would be futile. If all three companies did it, I think that would be a huge shot in the arm for political progressives in China.

You can keep saying you've proven my claims false all you want, and continue blathering endlessly about why you think it's wrong, but you're an idealist living in the real world.

Ethics is in fact about the real world. People who say what you've just said are usually just seeking to make excuses for profiting from unethical behaviour.

Grow up.

Me grow up? You're the one suggesting that it's OK to profit from violating human rights. That sounds selfish and childish to me. Children are the ones who seek to ignore the misery they inflict on others for their own benefit. Grown ups actually realize that there is a point to the consideration of the interests of others.

Multibillion dollar businesses with a responsbility to providing ROI to shareholders are not going to lose billions of dollars over futile political stands with no effect.

Again, you are assuming that this is true, and assuming that it is relevant. You have not yet countered the possibility that it is irrelevant, so you are, as someone said, just like a broken record.

Case dismissed...

You'll have to do a lot better than repeating the statement that is in question.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
The following patently absurd view.

You may find it absurd, but that's how the real world works.

This ain't academia, ace.

Companies exist to provide ROI to the shareholders, not to promote ethical agendas in communist nations.

All of your incessant whining and complaining isn't changing this.

Go ahead and prove me wrong, but you'll find it's quite impossible to argue companies exist to promote Liberal ethics in Communist China.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

You may find it absurd, but that's how the real world works.

This ain't academia, ace.

Companies exist to provide ROI to the shareholders, not to promote ethical agendas in communist nations.

That's avoiding the question... again.

All of your incessant whining and complaining isn't changing this.

Perhaps my particular moaning won't change this, but in general moaning does change things. I guess you haven't been watching the news for the past five years.

Go ahead and prove me wrong, but you'll find it's quite impossible to argue companies exist to promote Liberal ethics in Communist China.

I've already proved you wrong.. numerous times. The fact that a company exists to provide ROI to its shareholders does not entail that it is entitled to abuse human rights to do so. In fact most shareholders are uneasy when this does happen.

If you are going to reply "they just do", that is no response to the argument. I don't dispute that they do. I dispute whether it is justifiable for them to do so, and you have completely failed to offer a convincing argument on that question.

Your position is that of a gas chamber attendant. I hope you're proud.

[Kidlicious]

@ Asher

Stop just saying that corporations are suppose to make profit.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kidicious
@ Asher

Stop just saying that corporations are suppose to make profit.

Yeah, no-one disagrees with that. This is about how far they can go in that regard. All the way to genocide according to you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
@ Asher

Stop just saying that corporations are suppose to make profit.

Weren't you the one that said since France and German have generally free populations, companies that engage in human rights violations there don't matter?

Why is Yahoo, for helping to ban free speech according to French and German law better than Microsoft banning free speech according to Chinese law?

Because one group of people are generally free? What a crock of ****!

[Agathon]

Why is Yahoo, for helping to ban free speech according to French and German law better than Microsoft banning free speech according to Chinese law?

It depends on the reason. If it is to ban Nazi symbols in Germany, I think that's a good reason. Censoring words like "freedom" and "democracy" is straight out of Oceania's playbook.

No-one should excuse corporations when they are bad citizens. As a matter of fact, I bet that there are plenty of decent people at Microsoft who are disgusted at this.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Agathon

Why is Yahoo, for helping to ban free speech according to French and German law better than Microsoft banning free speech according to Chinese law?

It depends on the reason. If it is to ban Nazi symbols in Germany, I think that's a good reason. Censoring words like "freedom" and "democracy" is straight out of Oceania's playbook.

Why is that a good reason? Nazis should have free speech rights as well. And if people believe that to be a human rights infraction, shouldn't Yahoo get the same flack for doing business with the French?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yeah, no-one disagrees with that. This is about how far they can go in that regard. All the way to genocide according to you.

I've said specifically that they should stop supplying tools that aid in genocide. This isn't a black/white case. Genocide clearly should not be aided, but that is not at all comparable to a corportation censoring the content on their private service under local law. You're essentially trying to make the argument that Microsoft is providing the duct tape to gag and rifles to shoot people who support democracy, when that's not the case at all.

While I consider communism to be unethical, I do support trade with China as well.

By your logic, should I refuse to do business with communists, even if it's in my best interests to do so?

Again, you're trying to make this an academic discussion. It's not.

The simple facts are, it's not practical for Microsoft to withdraw from the Chinese market. It's simply too important, and practically there's no benefit for withdrawing their products.

If the current management at MS did withdraw their products from China, I can guarantee you the shareholders would fire them and hire someone who would expand into growth markets.

I don't care if you think this is not ethical. I don't care if you think it's not ideal.

The whole point is it doesn't matter. It is not an option for Microsoft to withdraw from that market, and that's all there is to it.

All of these attempts to hold an academic argument on ethics just show just how out of touch you are when it comes to business in the real world. I will bookmark this thread and use it in the future on rant about inept Philosophers running technology companies into the ground.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Weren't you the one that said since France and German have generally free populations, companies that engage in human rights violations there don't matter?

Why is Yahoo, for helping to ban free speech according to French and German law better than Microsoft banning free speech according to Chinese law?

Because one group of people are generally free? What a crock of ****!

Why are you trying to restart a debate that you just pwned yourself twice in?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher
I do support trade with China as well.

So does everyone else. The issue is whether MS should sell censoring software there.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The fact you think you pwned me is amusing in itself.