Microsoft hates Freedom and Democracy!!!

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun
I swear you and Asher should just get married the way you two argue all the time.

I would never marry someone who was so submissive...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

I must of missed it.

Did you conclude that it is unethical for private companies to censor their own products, or that it was ethical?

If it's ethical, why is it a problem here?

If it's unethical, why do you not make a stink about censorship on Apolyton, on not allowing minors access to hardcore pornography, etc?

I await your "but! but! but!" argument, disguised with philosophical bull**** smoke and mirrors. Surprise me...

Because this isn't about a private company censoring its own private service for it's own reasons, but a private company colluding with a government to enforce a nationwide prohibition on free speech.

The fact that your position now requires one to assume that what Microsoft is doing is fine because Ming deletes spam posts, shows the desperate situation your inability to admit you are wrong has landed you in.

Add to that the fact that any logical distinction that displays any kind of subtlety at all completely goes over your head, and I reckon that is a pretty good case for making critical reasoning compulsory at your school.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher

I would never marry someone who was so submissive...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Because this isn't about a private company censoring its own private service for it's own reasons, but a private company colluding with a government to enforce a nationwide prohibition on free speech.

Where is the collusion?

Am I colluding with the Canadian government if I decide not to murder someone?

Microsoft is complying with the law. The exact same reason porn companies apply censorship to prevent minors from accessing content -- to comply with the law.

Using your argument, a porn company is a private company colluding with a government to enforce a nationwide prohibition on freedom of expression/free speech...

Add to that the fact that any logical distinction that displays any kind of subtlety at all completely goes over your head, and I reckon that is a pretty good case for making critical reasoning compulsory at your school.

It really looks bad when you say things like this when you're being suitably whipped, with the only person stepping to your aid being Kidicious.

You're getting mad at Microsoft for adhering to local law because you disagree with the law. Fine. Power to you -- go tie yourself to a tree on the Redmond campus and cry for the world to hear you.

[Agathon]

This is what I mean:

So if there is no difference between censoring blogs on a private service and manufacturing killing machines for China...why is there a difference between censoring blogs on a private service and censoring kids from seeing hardcore pornography, or censoring on a site like Apolyton?

Human rights variations may vary in degree (murder being worse than state censorship), but that doesn't require me to say that Ming's spam deletion is a human rights violation. There are degrees of censorship and degrees of human rights violations. That doesn't mean the two are co-extensive, such that all censorship is a human rights violation.

Perhaps it is in your diseased mind, but it's obviously absurd to claim so.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Where is the collusion?

Am I colluding with the Canadian government if I decide not to murder someone?

You're colluding with them if you take a contract whereby you conduct the random murder of Canadians.

It's funny how desperate you've become to defend your absurd view that you are resorting to intentional misrepresentation of mine.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Human rights variations may vary in degree (murder being worse than state censorship), but that doesn't require me to say that Ming's spam deletion is a human rights violation.

It does if you were being consistent.

Freedom of speech is a human right, Ming's deletion of my spam is a clear infringement on that. This, too, is a violation of human rights to a different degree.

Why is somebody who hates philosophy kicking your ass in an ethics debate?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
You're colluding with them if you take a contract whereby you conduct the random murder of Canadians.

It's funny how desperate you've become to defend your absurd view that you are resorting to intentional misrepresentation of mine.

That makes no sense, Aggie dear.

What contract did Microsoft sign here?

It's embarrassingly simple, Aggie: Microsoft is complying with local law in China. You equate this to collusion (I'm going to ignore the fact that you apparently don't know how to use this word correctly).

Similarly, my compliance with Canadian law means I'm colluding with the Canadian government.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher


It does if you were being consistent.

Freedom of speech is a human right, Ming's deletion of my spam is a clear infringement on that. This, too, is a violation of human rights to a different degree.

Why is somebody who hates philosophy kicking your ass in an ethics debate?

The fact that you think you are is funny. If you think that's what I said, then good for you. You got owned in this debate from the get go and are now trying to weasel your way out of it. I haven't changed my position at all. You must be on about your fourth line of argument now.

Sorry loser.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
The fact that you think you are is funny. If you think that's what I said, then good for you.

The first part is what you said, the second part is if you apply the same argument in a different, obviously absurd situation.

I think there's some fancy latin phrase for this kind of argument, reductio ad absurdum or something? You know, Aristotle used it a lot.

You must be on about your fourth line of argument now.

Sorry loser.

I'm trying to find some way to get through your thick head.

My position hasn't changed either, obviously.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
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??

^^^^

As a side note, has a moderator dealt with this violation of site rules, and his subsequent cockyness about how he can get away with it?

I reported the post because it emotionally traumatized me etcetc, and I know how hard it is for you guys to spot such violations of rules.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

The first part is what you said, the second part is if you apply the same argument in a different, obviously absurd situation.

But someone would have to be a complete loon to think that it is exactly analagous.

I think there's some fancy latin phrase for this kind of argument, reductio ad absurdum or something? You know, Aristotle used it a lot.

It's actually called "false analogy", when you carry over the validity of one argument over to another superficially similar one that it doesn't quite fit.

I'm trying to find some way to get through your thick head.

And you are the one complaining about insults.

My position hasn't changed either, obviously.

Yes it has.

(1) Microsoft is being forced to follow local laws (that's BS, no-one is forcing them to sell in China).

(2) There's nothing wrong with following the local laws (that's BS - ultimately the logic of the gas chamber attendant).

(3) Ethics doesn't matter in business, only profits do (that's BS, since the argument was not whether about it was profitable, but whether it was ethical, and you just BAMed that one - as GePap noted earlier on).

(4) Only academics would care about such issues (another irrelevant BAM)

(5) It's OK because the situation in China will be as bad whether or not Microsoft profits (that involves such an outrageous fallacy, that I'm surprised you could post it with a straight face).

(6) Now you seem to think that I must believe that Ming is as evil as the Chinese (by means of a fallacious interpretation of my position - either that or you've lost it).

That's what I can remember off hand. There are probably more avenues of confusion that you explored, but they weren't particularly memorable.

None of it is particularly convincing. But I guess you can just retort to abuse and sneering, which is about all you're good at.

[Asher]

I've never seen someone so consistently miss an obvious point, then blame it on someone else before.

You're exploring new territory here, Aggie.

[Agathon]

You're just full of it. Like some little girl who can't shut up, even though she has nothing new to say.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Like some little girl who can't shut up, even though she has nothing new to say.

I agree, and the best part was you said you gave up a long, long time ago.

Clearly you felt your positioned threatened or something.