 |
| |
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
People desire equality to make sure that they get happiness. So in that sense they are dependent upon each other. |
People desire liberty to make sure that they get happiness. So in that sense they are dependent upon each other. 
|
Bingo. I'm glad you are finally seeing things our way. That actually didn't take too long.
quote:
quote:
Which is why Christians are not rational, because they only consider views that are consistant with the Bible. |
Nice generalization! Do you think every Christian is a fundamentalist? What about those who have liberal interpretations of the Bible?
|
Depends on how liberal of an interpretation.
quote:
quote:
Why do you think that people are incapable of making unbiased judgements? |
How can someone seperate out all their experiences when making a judgement? It is because of those experiences that they believe in what they believe and that informs the starting premises and conclusions. You claim a 'biased' premise later on. Every premise is based on bias. It is based on your experiences and teachings. There is a reason why political parties find strength in certain areas. Shared experiences tend to result in shared biases, which result in shared biased premises.
They can say they want to make 'unbiased' judgements, but it all comes back to the experiences they've had since they were a kid, which shaped their beliefs and how they look at the world.
It's a nice saying, put yourself in someone else's shoes, but you don't have the experiences necessary to actually do it. You can try to imagine, but your biases will color the attempt.
|
All you have to do is realize that your own experience is irrelevent, because it's only the experience of one person. Only when you consider the experience that other people have regardless of your own experience, can you make an unbiased judgement.
quote:
quote:
I'm not biased simply because you disagree with me. |
It isn't disagreement, because I think people like DinoDoc, Kuciwalker, and myself are biased as well, in our own ways.
When I look at your biased work, I come to that discussion where we were discussing why Toyota raised their prices. You immediately jumped on the 'they are doing this because they are going to make more profit' reason as a result of your anti-corporation bias. You backed away very quickly when it was pointed out how silly that was. Kuci detailed your pwnage very nicely, and how in the end, you shifted positions to agree that the actual reason Toyota did it was so they could avoid tariffs placed by the US government, but then acted like that was what you were saying all along. 
It was amusing, but your biased showed with your anti-corporation rant before you even seemed to think the entire issue through. |
I made no such flip-flop, but that isn't the point. I do have an anti-corporate bias. That doesn't mean that I can't overcome it. People can reckognize their bias and come to an unbiased conclusion.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
You conceded the argument. Liberty only has value in so much as it increases happiness. That's why you can take liberty away and increase happiness. |
Did you not compare your quote to my quote? I just took what you said and changed equality with liberty, to show that they can be interchangable in your discussion, dispensing with equality as an end.
Happiness, I already dealt with, when I asked WHO'S happiness. It falls on that point. Sure people want to be happy, but that mostly means their own happiness and not anyone else's.
quote:
Your argument flies in the face of the scienific method. Your experience is insignificant, and completely irrelevent. |
The scientific method! If you actually think you can divorce your experience from analyzing anything you are barking mad. It is what allows you to make sense of the world. You can't analyze anything if you can't make sense of it.
I've yet to see anyone divorce their biases from their points. That is why people come to so many vastly different conclusions from one premise.
quote:
More than one s means you lose the argument |
No, it means that you saying you can overcome your anti-corporate bias when you never have come close in your time on Apolyton is a bit hard to swallow.
You've also showed you bias, in this thread, against Christians. You couldn't put yourself in their socks, not even mentioning their shoes.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
No one seems to be arguing with him on that point.
The point is it doesn't matter if he finds it immoral. |
If you trully did not care, you would not participate in the thread.
quote:
The point is that nobody cares what a philosophy instructor thinks in the world of big business, where ideals take a back seat to the practical. |
And you think we care what you think either? You have issues.
quote:
And in the real world, if Microsoft's actions do not affect China's censorship policies, it is in Microsoft's best interests to compete in that market. |
Actually, they do help make it easier for the Chinese. They don;t have the technical expertise to censor that way, which is why they demand corporations do it. If all non-Chinese corporations resited doing this, then the Chinese would either curtail web use, which they know would hurt them economically in the long term, or have to accept people would bypass their laws.
quote:
Anyone who has such ideals as Aggie wouldn't last a day in the real world of business. |
You mean like highly profitable Ben and Jerry's ice cream?
Yeah, those two guys are in the poor house due to their liberal human rights sort of thinking. Yup, no business accumen.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
And on that issue, Agathon has said nothing but "it's unethical".
That's why he lost, a long, long time ago.
I countered that claim when I made the similar claim that I found Apple's practices were unethical as well. |
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
God, are you oblivious or what. Maybe this has not gotten through to you yet, but "making a claim" is not enough. You have to back it with arguements. But given that you have already stated you are unwilling to enter into a philosophical debate on ethics, you simply have not presented no arguement for your claims.
Now, maybe you missed the Memo, but
Claim backed by arguement>unsubstantiated claim.
quote:
What it comes down to is -- so what? Businesses exist to make money. If you don't like it, vote communist, then censor everyone -- like China.  |
Does your wit(lessness) know no bounds!
Hey, have you been buying shares on those blood diamond distributors right? And the Elephant Ivory merchants as well?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeah, because if you break a country's laws and don't rectify it after they ask you to do so, they'll just let you produce whatever you want in their borders, especially when the government is a dictatorship . |
What law would MS be breaking by not selling their software in China, oh great legal expert?
Cause I would be surprised to see a law on China's books that made it illegal NOT to sell software in China.
quote:
And I think he lost badly on that aspect. Especially when you couple that with his general anti-MS bias. He was just railing on MS and I don't recall this rage on account of other US companies that do the same thing while in the Chinese market. |
His anti-MS bias drives part of his opinion, but it does nothing to undermine the basic logic of it, ie. corporations should have some sort of ethics. Plus he has also noted the difference between basic goods with no political consequences, and technology aimed at the control of information. I agree with Agathon that there is a fundamental difference between making socks in China and selling the Chinese technology making it eaiser for them to crack down on dissent.
Another aspect of this, of course, is the arms embargo. The US does huge trade with China, but does not let our defense contractors sell China guns. Would you claim this is a nutty policy given our other trade with China?
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-06-2005 09:28
|