 |
|  |
 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999 time: 22:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kidicious
That's not a strawman. The issue is whether the action is unethical or not. It is, and you are saying ethics has nothing to do with business. |
No, I never said that. Thus why that's a strawman.
I said it wasn't a consideration in this debate, it didn't matter in this debate. Whether you find it ethical or not, it has no impact whatsoever. Even then, it's censorship on a private service that should be the center of an ethics debate -- not this human rights nonsense. It would be a debate about human rights if MS was licensing a technology to systematically eliminate anyone who mentioned the word "freedom". 
To argue ethically against this, you need to successfully argue that private services are not allowed to be censored for one (neither you nor Aggie has even attempted that one).
Then you need to explain, even if ethically they should not be allowed to censor their own, private service, why other private services are regularly censored. "But that's different!" doesn't count -- as Aggie said ( ), that's the same thing, but just a matter of degree!
At that point you need to explain why businesses -- who exist to generate profit for the shareholders -- should listen to your ethical argument and generate less profit, accordingly. The only person who attempted this was LOTM, who made some reasonable points, but I very much doubt they'd have any kind of real impact at all on the company...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002 time: 00:37
|
|
quote: 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.
quote: 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.
quote: I'm trying to find some way to get through your thick head. |
And you are the one complaining about insults.
quote: 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.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37. Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|