Microsoft hates Freedom and Democracy!!!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Hm. Aggie's position seems to be that M$ should keep out of the PRC till the later tidies up. This would help whom, exactly?

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
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.

For the last time: Aggie's ethical argument is ignored and not relevant to a debate about business viability of a public company.

The argument he needs to make is why Microsoft should lose many billions of dollars over this.

He hasn't made that argument, and you're even further behind because you haven't even figured out that such an argument is necessary!

I'm not arguing with him about if it's ethical or not. I've said -- so many times now -- that it doesn't matter. So why do you keep saying that I'm not refuting his argument?

The reason he got owned is he hasn't MADE an argument about why MS should leave China. The ONLY argument he's made in this case is he doesn't think it's ethical.

It's an absurdly weak argument.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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.

"Common sense" is one of the dumbest arguements EVER.
Common sense told the American people that the fact Saddam had not come clean about his wepaons programs must mean he had one. Yeah, the power of "common sense"

And, "hostile"? Right, cause the Chinese government will crumble if they have to find different partners for posting weblogs.

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

That article is pretty ironic. Interestingly enough, according to the article the actions in that sweatshop were against Chinese labor law. HOw likely then it was a private firm?

And that doesn't help support the regime?

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

Of course, that explains the increase in disaffection in the internal provinces and the growth of disturbances..yup.

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

So I guess there is no learning from past mistakes?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

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!

RIGHT, the worse thing you have done in your 5 years here plus is call someone clueless...



Oh, and I have no ethical problems about you being dealt differently than I. Heavens knows who wants to be treated like the Plebes?

[Asher]

Here.

Question 1: Why should Microsoft leave China?
Question 2: What benefit does China receive by Microsoft leaving?
Question 3: What benefit do the people of China receive by Microsoft leaving?
Question 4: What benefit does Microsoft receive by leaving?
Question 5: Why should Shareholders support such a decision to leave the fastest growing and future largest market over this?

If you can provide any kind of reasonable argument for questions 1-5, you'll redeem yourself.

Until then, knock it off with all this talks about refuting his ethical argument. This is an argument asking a public company to lose tons of money over a political statement, so he'll need to do a helluva job to make a convincing argument to me and other shareholders.

[aneeshm]

Agathorn , it seems you don't understand that Microsoft is forced into the China marked by US law . A company has to act to protect the interest of its shareholders . If it does not do that , it is liable to be sued . Not going into China would thus be a violation of the law of their home country - the USA .

So please , stop deluding yourself ad admit that you've just shot yourself in the foot .

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
Here.

Question 1: Why should Microsoft leave China?
Question 2: What benefit does China receive by Microsoft leaving?
Question 3: What benefit do the people of China receive by Microsoft leaving?
Question 4: What benefit does Microsoft receive by leaving?
Question 5: Why should Shareholders support such a decision to leave the fastest growing and future largest market over this?

If you can provide any kind of reasonable argument for questions 1-5, you'll redeem yourself.

Until then, knock it off with all this talks about refuting his ethical argument. This is an argument asking a public company to lose tons of money over a political statement, so he'll need to do a helluva job to make a convincing argument to me and other shareholders.

Oh, its so cute you think I need to get your approval. Unimaginable as it is, I could not care less what your opinion of me is..shocking, I know.

As for knocking this out-why the hell do you enter into a debate with Aggie in the first place?

Aggie said he thought MS should not do business in China if censoring weblongs was part of it. Fine, you disagree. But it was your choice to engage in the thread, and what Aggies was making form day one was an ehtical argument about corporate responsiblity. If you are not willing to argue that, then why did you try?

You are not even arguing on the same plane as him, so essentially you two are talking past each other, which is usually the case. What I find funny is that Aggie seems more aware of that problem than you, but he is more of a jerk sometimes, so he seems to care less, just to argue with you.

[Asher]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Agathorn , it seems you don't understand that Microsoft is forced into the China marked by US law . A company has to act to protect the interest of its shareholders . If it does not do that , it is liable to be sued . Not going into China would thus be a violation of the law of their home country - the USA .

So please , stop deluding yourself ad admit that you've just shot yourself in the foot .

And I'm pretty sure that the shareholders with voting shares would kick out the current execs and replace them with people who would expand in China...

[GePap]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Agathorn , it seems you don't understand that Microsoft is forced into the China marked by US law . A company has to act to protect the interest of its shareholders . If it does not do that , it is liable to be sued . Not going into China would thus be a violation of the law of their home country - the USA .

So please , stop deluding yourself ad admit that you've just shot yourself in the foot .

A, no, that's not how that law works.
Just for your information.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh, its so cute you think I need to get your approval. Unimaginable as it is, I could not care less what your opinion of me is..shocking, I know.

As for knocking this out-why the hell do you enter into a debate with Aggie in the first place?

Aggie said he thought MS should not do business in China if censoring weblongs was part of it. Fine, you disagree. But it was your choice to engage in the thread, and what Aggies was making form day one was an ehtical argument about corporate responsiblity. If you are not willing to argue that, then why did you try?

You are not even arguing on the same plane as him, so essentially you two are talking past each other, which is usually the case. What I find funny is that Aggie seems more aware of that problem than you, but he is more of a jerk sometimes, so he seems to care less, just to argue with you.

I'm sorry, could you please respond to my questions in the form they are asked? For example, "1. " should precede your answer for question 1.

Because right now, I can't see the answers to my questions in your post.

I take it failure to answer the questions means I've made my point, and you concede defeat?

My argument was patently clear from the start. Keywords included "profit" and "shareholder". The fact that Agathon waffled around fabulously, from US media to ethics, does nothing but solidify the idea that he fled from a debate he had no choice in.

[Asher]

Look: his assertion was Microsoft should not do business in China if they have to censor their products as per Chinese law.

This argument -- whether they should do business in a country or not -- is very much a question that has to do with the business, and therefore its shareholders approving such a decision. As such, to back up his opinion he needs to present an argument explaining why Microsoft should leave China.

He's presented a dizzying array of unrelated arguments -- ones that you seem to focus on as "key" for whatever reason, but he's ignored the real issue and his original assertion remains absurd.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

I'm sorry, could you please respond to my questions in the form they are asked? For example, "1. " should precede your answer for question 1.

Because right now, I can't see the answers to my questions in your post.

I take it failure to answer the questions means I've made my point, and you concede defeat?

My argument was patently clear from the start. Keywords included "profit" and "shareholder". The fact that Agathon waffled around fabulously, from US media to ethics, does nothing but solidify the idea that he fled from a debate he had no choice in.

How pathetic.

Take my decision not to answer your questions as a simple statement that they are irrelevant to my point in this thread, and your inability to understand that point leaves me simply with a feeling of contempt for you at this moment.

[GePap]

And what's amazing on top of that is that there were at least two counter ethical arguments you could have made.

1. You could have made your fiduciary responsiblity one into an ethical one- ie. a corporation has an ethical responsiblity to its shareholders and its workers and must protect it.

But you refuse to engage in philosophical debate.....

Or you could have used a utalitarian arguement of how MS staying in China in the long run increases the common good.

But you did not make that arguement either.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Freedom and human rights are banned expressions in China.

That's interesting news. Where did you get that from?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Agathorn , it seems you don't understand that Microsoft is forced into the China marked by US law . A company has to act to protect the interest of its shareholders . If it does not do that , it is liable to be sued . Not going into China would thus be a violation of the law of their home country - the USA .

Huh? Where did you get that law from?