Microsoft hates Freedom and Democracy!!!

[Asher]

You see it as shameful, I see it as practical. MS' practices will have zero impact of Chinese government policy.

The issue is with China and its laws, not with the companies enforcing local laws.

If MS started censoring its US Blogs removing references to freedom and democracy, I would agree with you. As it is right now, you're just being a silly fanboy.

[Kuciwalker]

Aggie, you haven't been answering me.

Situation 1: MS does what it's doing. Chinese people have a censored blogging service.

Situation 2: MS stops providing this service. Either someone else steps up and starts providing this service (in which case the Chinese people still have a censored blogging service) or no one does, in which case they have no blogging service.

HTF is 2 better than 1?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Aggie, you haven't been answering me.

Situation 1: MS does what it's doing. Chinese people have a censored blogging service.

Situation 2: MS stops providing this service. Either someone else steps up and starts providing this service (in which case the Chinese people still have a censored blogging service) or no one does, in which case they have no blogging service.

HTF is 2 better than 1?

Because in case 2 Microsoft isn't profiting from human rights violations. If someone else does it then no-one can point at Microsoft as being the bad guy.

Presumably western blogging services are cheaper and better than any domestic alternative. Or, if as you suggest there is no blogging service, then the Chinese government loses face with its people – who'll also find out that foreigners are refusing to collude with their own government's repressive practices. I think that would win Microsoft a few friends in China, and it would certainly be a major PR shot in the arm in the West. Less co-operation in the more BS practices of the Chinese government helps the dissidents.

Ideally, if all companies were to refuse to collude with unethical Chinese practices, the government would be in a much less advantageous position than it is. They allow Western companies in because they have something they want. It's not different in kind than if a western company had contracted to organize the Tiananmen massacre – making money from directly violating human rights sucks.

[Kuciwalker]

Because in case 2 Microsoft isn't profiting from human rights violations. If someone else does it then no-one can point at Microsoft as being the bad guy.

Oh, so I get to feel good even though nobody's situation has actually improved? Intellectual masturbation

Presumably western blogging services are cheaper and better than any domestic alternative.

I'm pretty sure they're free...

Or, if as you suggest there is no blogging service, then the Chinese government loses face with its people – who'll also find out that foreigners are refusing to collude with their own government's repressive practices. I think that would win Microsoft a few friends in China, and it would certainly be a major PR shot in the arm in the West. Less co-operation in the more BS practices of the Chinese government helps the dissidents.

Ideally, if all companies were to refuse to collude with unethical Chinese practices, the government would be in a much less advantageous position than it is. They allow Western companies in because they have something they want.

Effectively, you're saying that Microsoft shouldn't do it because it would have a positive effect. This is absurd.

[Agathon]

Oh, so I get to feel good even though nobody's situation has actually improved? Intellectual masturbation

I don't think that abstaining from doing bad things is necessarily intellectual masturbation. Sometimes we can't control the behaviour of others who will make sure the bad things happen anyway, but it's fallacious to infer that this somehow licences us to do the bad thing. If you want a concise statement of what Asher can't get his head around, the previous sentence is it.

I'm pretty sure they're free...

Don't you have to pay for the premium deal?

Effectively, you're saying that Microsoft shouldn't do it because it would have a positive effect. This is absurd.

That their not doing it may have a positive effect. Very possibly. I guess you do enjoy defending China's authoritarian practices so much. And to think that I usually get done for the same thing.

Their doing it will have a negative effect, which they will be responsible for.

[Asher]

If you want a concise statement of what Asher can't get his head around, the previous sentence is it.

Asher can get his head around it, but would still like you to describe how you would convince shareholders to neglect profitable markets that have no impact on China's human rights policies just so you can have a warm fuzzy feeling inside of you.

You're having a hard time discovering that while doing the thing to make a futile moral stand leaves you feeling nice and warm and tingly, other people would like to keep their jobs instead.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think that abstaining from doing bad things is necessarily intellectual masturbation. Sometimes we can't control the behaviour of others who will make sure the bad things happen anyway, but it's fallacious to infer that this somehow licences us to do the bad thing. If you want a concise statement of what Asher can't get his head around, the previous sentence is it.

I think it's intellectual masturbation to praise yourself from doing something that has no positive effect, or for refraining from doing something with no negative effect.

That their not doing it may have a positive effect. Very possibly. I guess you do enjoy defending China's authoritarian practices so much. And to think that I usually get done for the same thing.

I'm defending China here?

My point is that, no matter what MS does, they will not be able to post those words in their blogs. And no matter what MS does, the Party isn't likely to actually feel any pressure.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Asher


Blah blah blah, take your dated Linux FUD elsehwere.

It was operator error that crashed the database system, not Windows NT.

The Database was "Standard Monitoring Control System application" (SMCS) developed by Canadian Aviation Electronics Inc. of Toronto.

What else did I say ? Or don't you read what is written in brackets ? And it was a goddam joke , get a sense of humour . You as well as I know that I'm not serious , though the incident I narrated is true .

[Agathon]

I think it's intellectual masturbation to praise yourself from doing something that has no positive effect, or for refraining from doing something with no negative effect.

That's the fallacy right there. You aren't refraining from doing something with no negative effect. You are refraining from doing something with a negative effect, it's just that some other bastard has decided to do it. That doesn't justify you doing it after all.

Your position is equivalent to the guy who rapes a woman because his friend said that he would do it if the original guy didn't and then tries to excuse himself on the grounds that she would have been raped anyway.

My point is that, no matter what MS does, they will not be able to post those words in their blogs. And no matter what MS does, the Party isn't likely to actually feel any pressure.

And this suffers from the same fallacy. Even if the outcome will be the same, you still aren't supposed to do it. To deny this leads to crazy counterexamples like the one I posted above.

Of course, you could be a complete evil cretin and argue that corporations have the right to engage in any unethical activity they can get away with as long as it's profitable, but that would make you an *******.

[Asher]

Of course, you could be a complete evil cretin and argue that corporations have the right to engage in any unethical activity they can get away with as long as it's profitable, but that would make you an *******.

It makes you an ******* to tell a company to make less money to make political statements that have no impact on the world.

[aneeshm]

Even Google , with their statement of "Do no Evil" , still censors their search engine in China . Does that make them evil ? According to Aggie , it does .

If it does , then Aggie should stop using Google , because he says it is unethical for an entity to follow local laws if those laws are unethical . Therefore , using Google is unethical for Aggie , because Google follows the unethical laws of . Therefore , Aggie cannot use Google , because using it would endorse a company that is evil .

Similarly , Aggie cannot use anything that came out of IBM after WW2 , because they helped the Nazis . They also canot use Intel chips , because Intel collaborates with the big , evil MS ( also because MS was blessed by the Nazi-helping IBM ) . Aggie , therefore , cannot use Apple's computers , because Apple is now going to start using the evil-by-association Intel's chips . Thus Apple is evil , at least for Aggie .

Where now , Agathorn ?

[Agathon]

It makes you an ******* to tell a company to make less money to make political statements that have no impact on the world.

I'm not surprised you would say this. Your entire political stance could be described as whiny selfishness. You seem to have no capacity to see any issue beyond how it affects you. I've lost count of the number of times you've whined about gay rights, and stuff that affects you while simultaneously and inconsistently supporting the persecution of others.

The funny thing is that you don't even seem to see anything strange about it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
I'm not surprised you would say this. Your entire political stance could be described as whiny selfishness.

How is "whiny" apt, you're the one whining about this whole issue.

Selfishness is also not apt. I'm all about practicality, you're obviously an idealist.

If my actions have no impact, I won't do them. If MS' withdrawl from the Chinese market doesn't alter China's policies (it won't), why bother doing it?

There's no result, there's no point to doing it.

You seem to have no capacity to see any issue beyond how it affects you. I've lost count of the number of times you've whined about gay rights, and stuff that affects you while simultaneously and inconsistently supporting the persecution of others.

The funny thing is that you don't even seem to see anything strange about it.

This has nothing to do with me. You've even tried this angle before in this thread, about censoring homosexuality -- I told you the same answer then, didn't I?

This is about you being an idealist and wanting a serious company to make a futile idealistic move to sacrifice the company's performance. That's being impractical, and unrealistic.

It has nothing to do with selfishness and everything to do with you being an idealistic lefty university instructor who has no concept of what businesses are actually all about. You lack the ability to discern the difference between an academic argument and one that has to fly in the real world.

And it's exactly reasons like this that ethics panels full of philosophy-majoring twits are a waste of everyone's time.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Agathon
I've lost count of the number of times you've whined about gay rights, and stuff that affects you while simultaneously and inconsistently supporting the persecution of others.

The funny thing is that you don't even seem to see anything strange about it.

Pot meet Kettle. Kettle meet pot.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

How is "whiny" apt, you're the one whining about this whole issue.

Selfishness is also not apt. I'm all about practicality, you're obviously an idealist.

If my actions have no impact, I won't do them. If MS' withdrawl from the Chinese market doesn't alter China's policies (it won't), why bother doing it?

There's no result, there's no point to doing it.


This has nothing to do with me. You've even tried this angle before in this thread, about censoring homosexuality -- I told you the same answer then, didn't I?

This is about you being an idealist and wanting a serious company to make a futile idealistic move to sacrifice the company's performance. That's being impractical, and unrealistic.

It has nothing to do with selfishness and everything to do with you being an idealistic lefty university instructor who has no concept of what businesses are actually all about. You lack the ability to discern the difference between an academic argument and one that has to fly in the real world.

And it's exactly reasons like this that ethics panels full of philosophy-majoring twits are a waste of everyone's time.

So we've moved from "Microsoft only has to obey local laws" to "profit at all costs is right" to "only philosophers would complain". All are patently ridiculous "arguments".

Looks like someone is floundering, and it's not me.