15-06-2005 10:17									#181
	Tired of ads?

quote: And their own happiness is insignificant, and irrelevent to the discussion when it's not even about them.

Now, their own happiness is not insignificant or irrelevent. It is everything. People care about their own happiness, not everyone's. Therefore it is valid to ask which happiness you refer to.

Since you won't acknowledge you pwnage on the equality being an end, I'd hope you'd understand that who's happiness is quite an important question if you say happiness is an end. Especially since you haven't answered my question as to whether it is better for a vast majority to be very happy (and small small minority to be slightly unhappy) or for everyone to be just barely happy.

quote: Using your own experience only will force you to come to very ****ed up conclusions.

Well, I guess we've figured out your problems .

quote: Using the human experience will generally allow you to make much better conclusions.

And people know every human's experience how....? You can't even begin to comprehend the experiences of every human. Just your own and you may be aware that there are the experiences of others around you (though using that experience without using your own to analyze ain't going to work).

quote: How would you know whether they are divorced from their bias?

When you see a pattern of beliefs in conversation and posts, you can quickly discern the biases of a person. Though my biases come into effect in ascertaining it. You can see how they are divorced from their biases from how often they move away from their base position.

Using this site for analysis, I'd have to say Spiffor is prehaps the closest thing we have to unbiased, but even his biases spill through. They have to. It's how he makes sense of the world and how he knows society around him. You can't divorce him of that.

	15-06-2005 10:19									#182
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by GePap 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.

And that was the entire extent of his argument.

quote: 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.

Here's the problem -- you're talking out of your ass! Go figure.

MS isn't selling China technology to make it easier to crack down on dissent.

Microsoft has a blogging service, MSN Spaces. In order for it to operate, they need to forbid certain words from being posted, as per Communist law.

They aren't selling China anything to help them censor people.

Read the thread, know the topic, then type out your predictable, baseless, and ornery responses.

	15-06-2005 10:19									#183
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Asher Err. No? They could ban Microsoft products from China if they don't modify their products.

And yet, this response does not actualy respond to the point. Your lack of a good liberal education is starting to show.

quote: You can't seriously compare an ice cream maker to Microsoft, are you? That's like comparing a tricycle to a Formula One car.

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??

	15-06-2005 10:21									#184
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap And yet, this response does not actualy respond to the point. Your lack of a good liberal education is starting to show.

The really funny part is your entire argument is based off your inability to comprehend the actual situation.

Microsoft is not selling China technology to censor people.

quote: 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??

Okay -- now he's called me witless and a dumbass.

If I'm going to get banned for saying "clueless", in a non-communist society you would also be banned for this...

	15-06-2005 10:24									#185
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Asher Own goal? That's why Aggie's claim of "it's unethical" falls short. I think it's pretty obvious that if MS refused to sell products in China, they would make less money. What else do I need to do to back that up?

Stating your opinion boy is not the same as making an argument.

Its obvious that you think that the sole repsonsiblity of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders.

That's an OPINION

If you want to make it an argument, you need to do something more than just re-state your opnion over and over like some imbecilic broken record.

You have to craft an arguement about why the sole reponsibility of a Corporation is to make money for its shareholders. That is something that can obviously be done, and its obvious YOU have NOT done it in this thread.

Care to try?

	15-06-2005 10:25									#186
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: What law would MS be breaking by not selling their software in China, oh great legal expert?

What if MS sold their software without adding China's specifications? MS wants to sell their software to Chinese people, which is not unethical to anyone's standards. The law says they have to add blocking software. If they sold it without adding that software, China would most likely tell MS to take a hike. It isn't unethical to sell to the Chinese people, but if they did it without blocking, they'd violate Chinese law. Why should the Chinese people suffer without any software at all?

Furthermore, if MS said it was not selling software in China because of their horrid human rights, how receptive do you think China would be to having that company's X-Box factories in the country? Not very.

quote: 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.

Bull. There is no difference. In both cases you are supporting the regime. Who do you think will be making the socks after all? In fact, it may be more objectionable in manufacturing items in China because there probably will be slave labor somewhere down the line.

quote: 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?

Yes and No. No for a couple reasons. China is our competitor on the world stage, so instead of our contractors selling our secrets, only we should have that right. Secondly, as a purchaser, we have the right to tell contractors that we won't purchase from you if you sell to our competitor (US government isn't subject to anti-trust ).

Yes, in cases where we have arms dealers who don't deal with the US. Sell them rifles, I see no probs with that.

	15-06-2005 10:27									#187
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Summary:

Aggie: Microsoft is evil for conducting business in China, where the Communists are forcing them to censor keywords from blog postings on MS' service.

Asher: Microsoft is following local laws. China will censor with or without Microsoft selling its products in China. Microsoft gains nothing but loses a lot by not complying with the law.

Aggie: But that is unethical! Businesses should be ethical!

Asher: I think a lot of Apple's business practices are unethical as well!

Aggie: Exactly!

Asher: Okay, but MS gains nothing by leaving the Chinese market.

Gepap: God your dumbass, Aggie is whiping the floor with you! Can't you see his logic! He clearly says it is unethical to follow communist laws.

	15-06-2005 10:27									#188
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Asher The really funny part is your entire argument is based off your inability to comprehend the actual situation. Microsoft is not selling China technology to censor people.

Actually, yes they are. China wants to make sure it can censor certain words and phrases. MS has decided that as the prize they are willing to make software that does just that. BY doing that, they do help China censor. That other companies might also be willing to help China censor in order to make MOney in China does not actually change the nature of MS's action.

quote: Okay -- now he's called me witless and a dumbass. If I'm going to get banned for saying "clueless", in a non-communist society you would also be banned for this...

Actually, you got banned for your distinct lack of charm and class. Deal with it.

	15-06-2005 10:28									#189
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: And their own happiness is insignificant, and irrelevent to the discussion when it's not even about them. Now, their own happiness is not insignificant or irrelevent. It is everything. People care about their own happiness, not everyone's. Therefore it is valid to ask which happiness you refer to.

We are not concerned about your individual happiness when discussing issues that affect everyone. If you want to start a thread regarding your personal life we will all be more than happy to be concerned ONLY with your happiness.

quote: Since you won't acknowledge you pwnage on the equality being an end, I'd hope you'd understand that who's happiness is quite an important question if you say happiness is an end. Especially since you haven't answered my question as to whether it is better for a vast majority to be very happy (and small small minority to be slightly unhappy) or for everyone to be just barely happy.

The first one seems better.

quote: quote: Using your own experience only will force you to come to very ****ed up conclusions. Well, I guess we've figured out your problems . quote: Using the human experience will generally allow you to make much better conclusions. And people know every human's experience how....?

History. Asking them.

quote: When you see a pattern of beliefs in conversation and posts, you can quickly discern the biases of a person. Though my biases come into effect in ascertaining it. You can see how they are divorced from their biases from how often they move away from their base position.

You mean like admiting they were wrong?

	15-06-2005 10:29									#190
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by GePap Stating your opinion boy is not the same as making an argument. Its obvious that you think that the sole repsonsiblity of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders.

Hmm.

No, if you understood how a public company worked, you would get that.

Shareholders own the company, the company does what they want. Shareholders want return on investment.

It's simple, even a government employee could understand it.

quote: That's an OPINION

Perhaps I need to hone my argument skills like Aggies.

You are unethical!

Did I win?

	15-06-2005 10:30									#191
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap Actually, you got banned for your distinct lack of charm and class. Deal with it.

So you're safe...why, exactly?

	15-06-2005 10:30									#192
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap Actually, yes they are.

Don't you understand economics?

The buyer isn't China. China isn't buying anything from Microsoft here. Ergo, Microsoft isn't selling anything to China here.

quote: Actually, you got banned for your distinct lack of charm and class. Deal with it.

As opposed to you, oozing charm and class in this thread, throwing out insults like there's no tomorrow...

	15-06-2005 10:32									#193
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

* DinoDoc offers popcorn to Boris

	15-06-2005 10:33									#194
	Got spare money?

quote: We are not concerned about your individual happiness when discussing issues that affect everyone.

Sure we are. Because they affect ME, so I'm concerned if I'll be happy. Look at any election, Kid. People vote on their personal happiness. It doesn't matter if a policy was best for the country, if they aren't doing well, they'll vote for the other guy.

quote: The first one seems better.

But what about the people who are unhappy? Don't you think they'd say they'd rather have everyone barely happy and if you cared about happiness, you'd agree with them?

quote: History. Asking them.

HISTORY?! ASKING THEM?!

What history and asking people have shown is that there is a wide, wide, wide variety of what people consider the 'human experience'.

quote: You mean like admiting they were wrong?

No, I don't mean like admitting they were wrong. In fact, most people have to admit they were wrong because they jumped in with their biases and later facts that they couldn't refute were shown to them.

	15-06-2005 10:38									#195
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui What if MS sold their software without adding China's specifications? MS wants to sell their software to Chinese. The law says they have to add blocking software. If they sold it without adding that software, China would most likely tell MS to take a hike.

Which would make sense if MS decided to illegaly sell their software in China. I seriously doubt MS would do that, and Aggies point is that MS should opt out of the Chinese software market if putting filters is the prize one must pay. What does any of that have to do with MS setting up a factory to manufacture home electronics for domestic Chinese usage and export?

quote: Furthermore, if MS said it was not selling software in China because of their horrid human rights, how receptive do you think China would be to having that company's X-Box factories in the country? Not very.

Ah, the return of the BAM. Why would China turn down MS and it chosing to make it's Xboxes in China even if MS decided to stay out of the software market in China? After all, other companies would be lining up to fill that hole?

Your opnion of what China might do, lacking any solid evidence, is not a particularly valid arguement.

quote: Bull. There is no difference. In both cases you are supporting the regime. Who do you think will be making the socks after all? In fact, it may be more objectionable in manufacturing items in China because there probably will be slave labor somewhere down the line.

Arguement two is pure BAM beyond being highly unlikely, given that China has at least 400 million people willing to do manufacturing and probably 100 Million already doing it, so the likelyhood that prisoners might be used is probabably low.

As for the first point- its probably just as likely thast the sock is being made by a privatetly owned Chinese cmpany or a subsidiary of an international corporation as a Chinese government controlled factory.

quote: Yes and No. No for a couple reasons. China is our competitor on the world stage, so instead of our contractors selling our secrets, only we should have that right. Secondly, as a purchaser, we have the right to tell contractors that we won't purchase from you if you sell to our competitor (US government isn't subject to anti-trust ). Yes, in cases where we have arms dealers who don't deal with the US. Sell them rifles, I see no probs with that.

Actually, the US government makes it a crime to sell such secrets to China, so its not just the US not buying from those who sell to China. So your annalysis is incomplete.

	15-06-2005 10:38									#196
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: We are not concerned about your individual happiness when discussing issues that affect everyone. Sure we are. Because they affect ME, so I'm concerned if I'll be happy. Look at any election, Kid. People vote on their personal happiness. It doesn't matter if a policy was best for the country, if they aren't doing well, they'll vote for the other guy.

Everyone voted for their own interest, without regard for anyone elses interest? And you know this how?

quote: quote: The first one seems better. But what about the people who are unhappy? Don't you think they'd say they'd rather have everyone barely happy and if you cared about happiness, you'd agree with them?

They may, or may not. No I wouldn't agree with them. I just told you that I agree with the other option.

quote: quote: History. Asking them. HISTORY?! ASKING THEM?! What history and asking people have shown is that there is a wide, wide, wide variety of what people consider the 'human experience'.

That's completely pointless.

quote: quote: You mean like admiting they were wrong? No, I don't mean like admitting they were wrong. In fact, most people have to admit they were wrong because they jumped in with their biases and later facts that they couldn't refute were shown to them.

You just pwned yourself again. Earlier I said that people can overcome their biases and you disagreed.

	15-06-2005 10:41									#197
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I feel like I'm in philosophy class again, arguing whether it's ethical to save a burning baby. And there's the philosophy students arguing that it's ethical to let the baby's choose its own fate...and everyone else just says collectively, "WTF?"

The pure pointlessness of it all boggles my mind.

	15-06-2005 10:43									#198
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Asher Hmm. No, if you understood how a public company worked, you would get that. Shareholders own the company, the company does what they want. Shareholders want return on investment. It's simple, even a government employee could understand it.

So much attitude, so little sense..what a pity.

First of all, you have to be in LaLa land to think all shareholders have a choice in corporate actions. But I already to be there.

I fully understand the fiduciary responsiblity of the corporate leadership (do I need to define fiduciary for you?) to shareholders.

But while doing something that is unprofitable breaks the shareholder trust, not expanding as rapidly into new markets in order not to act unethically is different, because MS will remain profitable whether it decides to make these sales or NOT.

quote: Perhaps I need to hone my argument skills like Aggies. You are unethical! Did I win?

The dunce cap certainly.

	15-06-2005 10:44									#199
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov So you're safe...why, exactly?

Cause I have called people worse, but in 4 years, I have never been banned.

Its called a proven track record.

	15-06-2005 10:45									#200
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: I seriously doubt MS would do that, and Aggies point is that MS should opt out of the Chinese software market if putting filters is the prize one must pay. What does any of that have to do with MS setting up a factory to manufacture home electronics for domestic Chinese usage and export?

1) They make Xboxes for use around the world there for cheap
2) Ever heard of the term "bargaining chip"?

And I understand Aggie's claim that if the price Microsoft must pay for doing business in China is to abide by the communist goverment's laws, then they should leave the market.

My point is that's impractical. Microsoft gains nothing from that. Shareholders get pissed. China remains unchanged either way.

Lose-Lose situation, all because some idealistic philosopher wants to take a moral stand -- for what?

	15-06-2005 10:46									#201
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap Cause I have called people worse, but in 4 years, I have never been banned. Its called a proven track record.

That just goes on to prove my point.

^^^^^ Did you see that Ming, MarkG, UR? ^^^^^

I got banned for FAR less than that, repeatedly.

Chinese censorship rampant on Poly.

	15-06-2005 10:48									#202
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Asher Don't you understand economics? The buyer isn't China. China isn't buying anything from Microsoft here. Ergo, Microsoft isn't selling anything to China here.

From the article:

quote: Microsoft's MSN Spaces site is run by its joint venture partner, the state-backed Shanghai Alliance Investment Ltd. Microsoft said people who used its MSN Spaces service were required to abide by its code of conduct.

But of course the issue is NOT an economics one. Its an ethical one. Aggie made the point that MS should stand up to the Chinese and get out of this market in China as long as China has those laws.

To argue against an ethical arguement, you need to make an ethical counterargument.

Or you could have stayed out of the thread entirely, but anything by Aggie is obviously too strong a bait for you.

quote: As opposed to you, oozing charm and class in this thread, throwing out insults like there's no tomorrow...

Oh, didn;t know your skin was so delicate..

	15-06-2005 10:49									#203
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap So much attitude, so little sense..what a pity. First of all, you have to be in LaLa land to think all shareholders have a choice in corporate actions. But I already to be there. I fully understand the fiduciary responsiblity of the corporate leadership (do I need to define fiduciary for you?) to shareholders. But while doing something that is unprofitable breaks the shareholder trust, not expanding as rapidly into new markets in order not to act unethically is different, because MS will remain profitable whether it decides to make these sales or NOT.

Completely untrue -- such an assertion shows a massive ignorance on the current computer software landscape.

China is a major proponent of Linux and is trying to spread it. Linux would destroy MS' main source of profits.

Leaving the Chinese market gives Linux free reign in the biggest and most important market in the future.

You've no idea what you're proposing -- Microsoft leaving China would be catastrophic to Microsoft's longterm growth and viability. Most of Microsoft's investors would likely know this, and on such an announcement would think Microsoft had lost its mind.

It would do massive amounts of damage to the company.

	15-06-2005 10:50									#204
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Asher That just goes on to prove my point. ^^^^^ Did you see that Ming, MarkG, UR? ^^^^^ I got banned for FAR less than that, repeatedly. Chinese censorship rampant on Poly.

Nah. I've probably been banned more than you have and for pettier stuff.

	15-06-2005 10:50									#205
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Asher That just goes on to prove my point. ^^^^^ Did you see that Ming, MarkG, UR? ^^^^^ I got banned for FAR less than that, repeatedly. Chinese censorship rampant on Poly.

And you have also done far worse.

The authorities look more closely at repeat offenders than people with "clean" records.

You have only your past to blame.

	15-06-2005 10:50									#206
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Your opnion of what China might do, lacking any solid evidence, is not a particularly valid arguement.

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.

quote: given that China has at least 400 million people willing to do manufacturing and probably 100 Million already doing it, so the likelyhood that prisoners might be used is probabably low.

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/...0slave_labor%60

quote: its probably just as likely thast the sock is being made by a privatetly owned Chinese cmpany or a subsidiary of an international corporation as a Chinese government controlled factory.

And that doesn't help support the regime?

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

quote: so its not just the US not buying from those who sell to China. So your annalysis is incomplete.

No, then it fits into the other two. The US can say that we won't buy from you if you sell to China or they should let them sell.

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

	15-06-2005 10:52									#207
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by GePap To argue against an ethical arguement, you need to make an ethical counterargument. Or you could have stayed out of the thread entirely, but anything by Aggie is obviously too strong a bait for you.

Completely untrue.

My entire point was whether Aggie found it ethical or not is irrelevant. My entire point was this is business.

This entire discussion, at its core, is about business. This is not a debate about ethics. Nobody gives a sh*t if a bunch of artsy nobodies think it's ethical or not. Nobody gives a sh*t if I think it's ethical or not.

What matters in the world of business is performance. Microsoft needs to perform to satisfy their shareholders. That's their job.

It is absurd to ask them to withdraw from China.

It is absurd to try to hold an argument to debate the ethics about this, when it really doesn't matter.

	15-06-2005 10:52									#208
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Asher 1) They make Xboxes for use around the world there for cheap 2) Ever heard of the term "bargaining chip"? And I understand Aggie's claim that if the price Microsoft must pay for doing business in China is to abide by the communist goverment's laws, then they should leave the market. My point is that's impractical. Microsoft gains nothing from that. Shareholders get pissed. China remains unchanged either way. Lose-Lose situation, all because some idealistic philosopher wants to take a moral stand -- for what?

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.

	15-06-2005 10:55									#209
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by GePap And you have also done far worse. The authorities look more closely at repeat offenders than people with "clean" records. You have only your past to blame.

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!

	15-06-2005 10:55									#210
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Everyone voted for their own interest, without regard for anyone elses interest? And you know this how?

Anyone who knows anything about politics knows this. Bush's tax increases were good for the country in the long run, but people lost their jobs and out Bush went.

quote: They may, or may not. No I wouldn't agree with them. I just told you that I agree with the other option.

Uh huh, and the other people have a good point. Which is why the question isn't that cut and dry.

quote: You just pwned yourself again. Earlier I said that people can overcome their biases and you disagreed.

If you actually think that people admitting they were wrong because they were faced with facts they couldn't refute because they jumped in with their biased views before finding out everything shows that they OVERCAME their biases then you are beyond hope!

If anything it further solidifies that people are a product of their biases. They'll only admit wrongness if they've been blatently caught.