![Reply](STYLES/Planetarion2/buttons/reply.gif) |
7 Sep 2005, 17:14
|
#1
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Yahoo, Microsoft and China
This disgusting stuff about Yahoo and Microsoft. Yahoo helped China jail a man for sending out an email about possible human rights violations or dangers thereof. Microsoft may be blocking words like 'freedom' through MSN China.
Is this okay? Are you okay with these companies acting contrary to obligations to rights most of us (I assume) would kill others to protect? What do you think?
http://news.zdnet.com/Group+says+Yah...feed&subj=zdnn
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5744347.html
|
|
|
7 Sep 2005, 17:29
|
#2
|
Prince of Amber
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,313
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Most of the people on this forum would not kill someone to protect someone else's rights. They might try talking them to death, though.
__________________
"We sleep safe at night in our beds because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who wish to do us harm." -- George Orwell.
|
|
|
7 Sep 2005, 23:34
|
#3
|
Insanity Prawn Boy!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In a bush where you can't find me
Posts: 2,474
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
I swear i read this thread title as "Yahwe, Microsoft and China"
__________________
They shall not grow old, as we who are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them.
|
|
|
8 Sep 2005, 02:53
|
#4
|
Ball
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,410
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
The first story doesn't make clear whether Yahoo Holdings were coerced or not.
I see nothing bad in the second case; MSN can either provide a censored service or provide nothing at all.
__________________
#linux
|
|
|
8 Sep 2005, 08:08
|
#5
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by queball
The first story doesn't make clear whether Yahoo Holdings were coerced or not.
|
The BBC had the same story and said that Yahoo declined to comment. Now this could be because they still had a gun to their head, or it could simply be they had no real defence of their actions.
Also, it depends what you mean by "coerced". If Yahoo were under the equivalent of a court-order then this would be understandable - but I am sure they could say that.
Quote:
I see nothing bad in the second case; MSN can either provide a censored service or provide nothing at all.
|
Some people would say the latter would be at least be principled.
|
|
|
8 Sep 2005, 08:47
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
The BBC had the same story and said that Yahoo declined to comment. Now this could be because they still had a gun to their head, or it could simply be they had no real defence of their actions.
Also, it depends what you mean by "coerced". If Yahoo were under the equivalent of a court-order then this would be understandable - but I am sure they could say that.
Some people would say the latter would be at least be principled.
|
I suspect that Yahoo will have had very little choice between revealing the information and being kicked out of China. Granted they may have been under a court order and may have been coerced, but ultimately they could have just completely ignored it and announced to the world what China was trying to force them to do. In any case, I can't see how the motive behind what they have done is anything other than profit.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........
ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
|
|
|
8 Sep 2005, 09:03
|
#7
|
The Original Terran
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Afghan atm
Posts: 1,633
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Dave
I swear i read this thread title as "Yahwe, Microsoft and China" ![Confused](images/smilies/confused.gif)
|
I thought it said that to weird.
__________________
introduction-Gramma
The following is a list of problems found in various places throughout the manual and game. We love you Noah!
Written by Kloopy Wed Mar 16 22:06:43 2005
Retired just for a bit....
Proud to have been 1up, SiN, Wolfpack, Bluetuba and the leader of ARK.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 12:47
|
#8
|
wild one
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: River Edge, NJ
Posts: 3,313
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Yahoo want to operate in China.
China has laws very different from our own regarding freedom of speech.
Every and any company wishing to trade within China's borders must respect these laws and do what the can to see them upheld - this includes providing evidence to the courts regarding those who break said laws.
China providing evidence against this man?
So?
It doesn't harm you. It doesn't harm me. It harms a Chinese citizen who broke one of his countries laws.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 12:54
|
#9
|
J to the C to the A G E
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Scúnthorpe
Posts: 5,583
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiddy
Yahoo want to operate in China.
China has laws very different from our own regarding freedom of speech.
Every and any company wishing to trade within China's borders must respect these laws and do what the can to see them upheld - this includes providing evidence to the courts regarding those who break said laws.
China providing evidence against this man?
So?
It doesn't harm you. It doesn't harm me. It harms a Chinese citizen who broke one of his countries laws.
|
I don't see why you 'must respect' laws which don't deserve any respect.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 13:46
|
#10
|
wild one
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: River Edge, NJ
Posts: 3,313
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by LHC
I don't see why you 'must respect' laws which don't deserve any respect.
|
Because they are a law, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
I don't agree with many laws in this country, however the quality of life here is better than other countries and I am appreciative of this, so I respect the laws, abide by them and get on with it without complaint.
If he didn't like the law limiting freedom of speech, he should have moved to a country which allowed it - rather than breaking the laws of his current country of residence.
I can't sleep with 14 year olds. I'd like to, because they have rounder, softer buttocks and pert, developing breasts. I don't do it though, because in this country it is illegal. Should I wish to do it in the future, I'll move to a country which allows this kind of practice, instead of breaking the law and suffering the ultimate consequences here.
The above isn't actually true, but it's an example of my point.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 14:06
|
#11
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiddy
Should I wish to do it in the future, I'll move to a country which allows this kind of practice, instead of breaking the law and suffering the ultimate consequences here.
|
A real patriot would stay at home and fight injustice.
Or something like that.
If everyone said "Oh well, the law is bad, I'll leave the country" then the law would never be changed and bad laws would never be challenged.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 14:40
|
#12
|
wild one
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: River Edge, NJ
Posts: 3,313
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
I'm not a real patriot though, I'm Australian.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 15:34
|
#13
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiddy
Because they are a law, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
If he didn't like the law limiting freedom of speech, he should have moved to a country which allowed it -
|
Don't be ignorant and self righteous. If you're suspected of being a dissdent in China you can't move to another country, they wont let you. And what if your country made a law forbidding that a particular type of person in your country is allowed to live and another one forcing you into compulsory service to help transport and dispose of said people. Leaving the country isn't an option. Would you obey that one too? Since it is a law?
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 15:37
|
#14
|
wild one
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: River Edge, NJ
Posts: 3,313
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by s|k
Don't be ignorant and self righteous. If you're suspected of being a dissdent in China you can't move to another country, they wont let you. And what if your country made a law forbidding that a particular type of person in your country is allowed to live and another one forcing you into compulsory service to help transport and dispose of said people. Leaving the country isn't an option. Would you obey that one too? Since it is a law?
|
You wouldn't have much of a choice, considering it is a law. Laws are made and changed in parliament, not by a minority of the country disobeying current ones. In China, democracy doesn't play a part, so you either live with the law as it is, or you move. If you can't move, you stay and get over it, otherwise you suffer the consequences of your subsequent actions.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 15:44
|
#15
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiddy
You wouldn't have much of a choice, considering it is a law. Laws are made and changed in parliament, not by a minority of the country disobeying current ones.
|
I presume you're at least partially trolling now, but since you're talking about China your remarks are amusing. You forget a third option : revolt, which the Chinese have certainly not forgotten.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 15:47
|
#16
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiddy
You wouldn't have much of a choice, considering it is a law. Laws are made and changed in parliament, not by a minority of the country disobeying current ones. In China, democracy doesn't play a part, so you either live with the law as it is, or you move. If you can't move, you stay and get over it, otherwise you suffer the consequences of your subsequent actions.
|
There's a thing called natural law, which in my opinion is higher than that of any law made by a government.
Instead of thinking that you're an inhumane piece of human filth, I will just assume that you're not very good at playing the devil's advocate. At least not today.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 16:33
|
#17
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
If a minority is not given these bennefits but has to carry the burdens why should they adhere to this social contract theory ?
|
A portion of them usually don't and that's why you see a lot them deviating from social norms. Also, norms of the majority are often so engineered as to specifically exclude minority behavior from what is considered appropriate. An example of this is the selection of which drugs are legal in the US. Alcohol and tabacco, the drugs of choice for middle class and affluent whites, is legal, while marijuana and opium based drugs were outlawed because of their association with Chinese immigrant workers in the early 20th century, and continue to be outlawed because of their continued association with blacks and hispanics. (Although one can begin to see the romanticization of opium based drugs in the media as this drug is being used less by minorities.)
Cocaine was widely popular among rich white people until the arrival of crack and it's use by inner city blacks. Enforcement of cocaine violations stepped up. Etc etc.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 16:37
|
#18
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
what about cocaine ?
|
I just edited it. (Before I even saw your post).
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 16:39
|
#19
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
surely we obey the law because each of us participates in a complicated arrangement whereby we gain certain bennefits in return for accepting certain burdens. The bennefits being social living: we escape anarchy. In order to enjoy these bennefits we agree that we will do our part to uphold the institutions that make them possible. This means obey the law, pay taxes etc etc.
If a minority is not given these bennefits but has to carry the burdens why should they adhere to this social contract theory ?
|
Social contract theory enthusiasts remind me of the monkeys in the zoo who throw faeces at passersby.
Nobody likes you and it's not particularly healthy so for the love of god stop it please
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 17:59
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,290
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by s|k
There's a thing called natural law, which in my opinion is higher than that of any law made by a government.
|
please explain what you mean by that term.
__________________
im not tolerant, i just dont care.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 18:22
|
#21
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by wu_trax
please explain what you mean by that term.
|
Natural law is an implied universal law based on shared human interests.
It's in your dictionary, look it up or go to:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...%3Anatural+law
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 19:09
|
#22
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,290
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
what does that have to do with freedom of speech? you can hardly claim that its part of the human nature, if the whole concept is just a few hundert years old and even today does not apply to large parts of humanity.
__________________
im not tolerant, i just dont care.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 19:42
|
#23
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by wu_trax
what does that have to do with freedom of speech? you can hardly claim that its part of the human nature, if the whole concept is just a few hundert years old and even today does not apply to large parts of humanity.
|
I wasn't around a hundred years ago and I don't care how old the concept is. Natural law is a tenet that I have adopted into my life. It takes precedent over the laws of any government. I will not behave contrary to them to the upmost of my ability. I realise that I have a choice to follow or deviate from established government laws, and I use my interpretation of natural law as my guide.
Skiddy claims that we have no choice, but until big brother can implant something in my brain or invest our water with mind-altering chemicals, I do have a choice. I can choose to say no, run away, and face the consequences of my actions.
Here's a poem that is a compelling argument for not always obeying the law for skiddy:
Quote:
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
|
And as for free speech, I feel that women and men have to the right to express themselves freely.
Quote:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire
|
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 20:16
|
#24
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by wu_trax
what does that have to do with freedom of speech? you can hardly claim that its part of the human nature, if the whole concept is just a few hundert years old and even today does not apply to large parts of humanity.
|
The length of time that humanity has lived in tyranny is not really the point here. The issue is the notion that our rights spring from our biological nature. Other species rights are dependent on their biological nature.
For a long period of human existence we have had laws which run contrary to human nature - take slavery for instance. I do not think slavery is a "natural" existence for man - that is a man in chains cannot develop to his full potential while enslaved. I also do not think that all things considered slavery can "last" as a balanced institution without relying on significant external "labour subsidy".
However, that is not relevent either here. What S|k is saying here (and I obviously happen to agree with him) is that there is obviously a system of morality "beyond" (or perhaps "above" or "prior to") the law. If our only criteria for good/bad was legality then it would be impossible to say "this law is wrong" as that would make no sense (we'd have to say "this law is inconsistent with other laws" or perhaps "this law leads to practical consequences which other laws define as bad" or something like that).
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 20:34
|
#25
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
As plato would say is evil still evil if the gods decree otherwise. Or something, I don't remember that one so well.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 20:47
|
#26
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,290
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
The length of time that humanity has lived in tyranny is not really the point here. The issue is the notion that our rights spring from our biological nature. Other species rights are dependent on their biological nature.
For a long period of human existence we have had laws which run contrary to human nature - take slavery for instance. I do not think slavery is a "natural" existence for man - that is a man in chains cannot develop to his full potential while enslaved. I also do not think that all things considered slavery can "last" as a balanced institution without relying on significant external "labour subsidy".
However, that is not relevent either here. What S|k is saying here (and I obviously happen to agree with him) is that there is obviously a system of morality "beyond" (or perhaps "above" or "prior to") the law. If our only criteria for good/bad was legality then it would be impossible to say "this law is wrong" as that would make no sense (we'd have to say "this law is inconsistent with other laws" or perhaps "this law leads to practical consequences which other laws define as bad" or something like that).
|
i guess our biological nature is to live in groups of 20-50 (no idea...) in caves and go out once in a while to hunt some mammoths. ofc, i have no problem with freedom of speech, however the word 'natural' bothers me, because that word implies that there is some univesal set of values or morality or whatever you want to call it that is ultimatly right, which means that all others are wrong. This indicates a certain arroganance that only we know whats right and wrong and that results in us trying to tell the rest of the world how to live.
(or something like that, ignore the grammar, i hope you get my point.)
__________________
im not tolerant, i just dont care.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 20:51
|
#27
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
As plato would say is evil still evil if the gods decree otherwise. Or something, I don't remember that one so well.
|
Euthyphro?
Quote:
Soc. And the gods are in the same case, if as you assert they quarrel about just and unjust, and some of them say while others deny that injustice is done among them. For surely neither God nor man will ever venture to say that the doer of injustice is not to be punished?
Euth. That is true, Socrates, in the main.
Soc. But they join issue about the particulars-gods and men alike; and, if they dispute at all, they dispute about some act which is called in question, and which by some is affirmed to be just, by others to be unjust. Is not that true?
Euth. Quite true.
Soc. Well then, my dear friend Euthyphro, do tell me, for my better instruction and information, what proof have you that in the opinion of all the gods a servant who is guilty of murder, and is put in chains by the master of the dead man, and dies because he is put in chains before he who bound him can learn from the interpreters of the gods what he ought to do with him, dies unjustly; and that on behalf of such an one a son ought to proceed against his father and accuse him of murder. How would you show that all the gods absolutely agree in approving of his act? Prove to me that they do, and I will applaud your wisdom as long as I live.
Euth. It will be a difficult task; but I could make the matter very dear indeed to you.
Soc. I understand; you mean to say that I am not so quick of apprehension as the judges: for to them you will be sure to prove that the act is unjust, and hateful to the gods.
Euth. Yes indeed, Socrates; at least if they will listen to me.
Soc. But they will be sure to listen if they find that you are a good speaker. There was a notion that came into my mind while you were speaking; I said to myself: "Well, and what if Euthyphro does prove to me that all the gods regarded the death of the serf as unjust, how do I know anything more of the nature of piety and impiety? for granting that this action may be hateful to the gods, still piety and impiety are not adequately defined by these distinctions, for that which is hateful to the gods has been shown to be also pleasing and dear to them." And therefore, Euthyphro, I do not ask you to prove this; I will suppose, if you like, that all the gods condemn and abominate such an action. But I will amend the definition so far as to say that what all the gods hate is impious, and what they love pious or holy; and what some of them love and others hate is both or neither. Shall this be our definition of piety and impiety?
Euth. Why not, Socrates?
Soc. Why not! certainly, as far as I am concerned, Euthyphro, there is no reason why not. But whether this admission will greatly assist you in the task of instructing me as you promised, is a matter for you to consider.
|
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 20:58
|
#28
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by wu_trax
that there is some univesal set of values or morality or whatever you want to call it that is ultimatly right
|
It is universal to the extent that you choose to adopt it. The universe is meaningless without humans.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 20:58
|
#29
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
That sounds like where I read it but I think there must be more after that.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 21:57
|
#30
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
That sounds like where I read it but I think there must be more after that.
|
There is a *lot* more, before and after.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 22:09
|
#31
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Obviously. I meant that wasn't the precise bit I was referring to so I'm unsure why you quoted it.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 22:11
|
#32
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Obviously. I meant that wasn't the precise bit I was referring to so I'm unsure why you quoted it.
|
Because I thought it could have been the bit you were referring to.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 22:16
|
#33
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
It's about four lines down actually
Quote:
Soc. We shall know better, my good friend, in a little while. The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.
|
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
9 Sep 2005, 22:25
|
#34
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
My shotgun approach usually doesn't fail me like it did this time.
|
|
|
10 Sep 2005, 00:15
|
#35
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by wu_trax
i guess our biological nature is to live in groups of 20-50 (no idea...) in caves and go out once in a while to hunt some mammoths.
|
Do you have any evidence for this? Please note, when I say natural I do not mean to say "humans have done it previously". That is a different debate.
It might be that human beings would be ultimately happier in groups of 20-50 but there's no sensible way we could integrate that into a law. However, the fundamental root of human consciousness is is individual cognition and that lies (or should lie) at the root of much of our politics as a result. Freedom of expression is merely an extension of that.
Quote:
however the word 'natural' bothers me, because that word implies that there is some univesal set of values or morality or whatever you want to call it
|
I believe there is. It's not "universal" as such - it only really applies to human beings. A race of intelligent insects (for instance) might have no conception of individual freedom as their cognition might operate purely through collective processes. But I'd say it's universal as far as human beings apply.
Quote:
that is ultimatly right, which means that all others are wrong.
|
Well, this really depends what you're talking about. As many others have said - where I disagree with you of course I think I am right and you are wrong. If I thought I was wrong and you were right then I would simply adopt your opinion. So yes, of course it means everyone else is wrong.
Of course, there are many issues where there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Whether punk rock is better than heavy metal is a matter of personal taste and of no real consequences either way. However, when it comes ot human rights it is far more dangerous to say "Well, in China the people don't have rights because Asians are naturally cruel and don't believe in freedom like the white man".
Furthermore, there is no foundation for such a belief as in every culture in every society in every period of history there is a general struggle towards personal freedom, towards intellectual and spiritual betterment, towards fulfillment of what I'd call the human spirit (or species character if you prefer).
Finally : Yes, of course people are different. I am not saying people must "behave" freely. It's just they should have the option to. If someone wants to be whipped all day long, then fine - that's there business. But if they don't want to be whipped and they are being whipped - well I believe that's all our businesses.
Quote:
This indicates a certain arroganance that only we know whats right and wrong and that results in us trying to tell the rest of the world how to live.
|
In this particular case, Yahoo is an American (or "Western") company. Criticism has centred on them, not the Chinese Government (in this thread I mean). You are right (to an extent) that it can be rather arrogant to blandly tell how the rest of the world should live - but we're not doing that. We're saying that companies that operate in the west should behave better.
|
|
|
10 Sep 2005, 00:31
|
#36
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
We're saying that companies that operate in the west should behave better.
|
Yessir, I don't want to be giving money to companies that have practices that go against my personal principles.
If I really the followed statement I just made up then I couldn't:
...drink foreign made coffee because a few rich landowers force starvation and displacement on their fellow poorer citizens by developing land for cash crops instead of food and housing.
...eat chocolate because the labor used in many parts of the world to supply the main ingredient is akin to slave like labor.
...drive a car, power up my home with anything not solar or wind powered, because of the tolerance of human rights abuses (massacres and rape) of major oil companies in indonesia.
...use various household chemicals related to India's big chemical disaster in the 1980's that was never investigated and killed thousands of people.
...buy clothes or shoes made by various clothing retailers because of the sweatshops in which they were made.
...use products made by IBM, Ford, and GM for their part in helping NAZI's exterminate millions of people.
...it goes on.
|
|
|
10 Sep 2005, 00:37
|
#37
|
mmm.. pills
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,152
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
<sarcasm>RIGHTS rights RIGHTS rights RIGHTS rights RIGHTS rights</sarcasm>
**** me but if I'm not sick of people dribbling about their 'rights'.
By default no one has any rights to anything at all unless explicitly stated in their constitution or law.
Freedom of speach is probably the worst offender, I hate how people keep trying to apply their own beliefs or countries laws upon others. In Australia as an example, much unlike the US constitution there is nothing in ours that explicitly states we have a right here to freedom of speach, we generally assume so and I hear the general public ranting about it here all the time, but I wonder if they are aware there is nothing legally that would prevent our Government if they should so choose to outlaw freedom of speach all together.
The problem with natural law s|k is that it still requires some body of power to uphold it, which in most cases are the majority, but can sometimes also be who has the biggest guns. Strip away this body of power though and you essentially have anarchy, which to be honest I feel is humandkinds more natural inclination than any form of universal social contract.
Anyway, to comment on the original post, I see no problem in what Yahoo has done, they are a business like any other of course they will be inclined to protect their assets. They operated within the countries laws & traditions so quite frankly get over it. We can try to make examples of these companies but I'm positive Google or anyone else would have done the same. Those that think there is any sort of privacy on the internet should get off now, they clearly don't know how it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiddy
I'm not a real patriot though, I'm Australian
|
In the words of the late Pauleen Hanson - "Please explain?"
|
|
|
10 Sep 2005, 00:46
|
#38
|
Caveat Lector
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 3,038
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbass
Strip away this body of power though and you essentially have anarchy, which to be honest I feel is humandkinds more natural inclination than any form of universal social contract.
|
The way you contexualized 'anarchy' leads me to assume that you think negatively of it. Maybe it's not so bad as it's made out to be.
Anyhow, I'm not saying Natural Law is a set of written rules that govern a nation. It is a set of rules that I personaly have adopted for my life.
I do think that Yahoo and Microsoft are wrong, if they did as alleged, and the consequence of that may be me being vocal about their wrongdoing, emailing my representatives in congress (I do this often, but they don't ever reply ![Frown](images/smilies/frown.gif) ), not paying for their services, etc.
I'm not saying the company should be disbanded, I just wished they cared about something more than profits. No doubt they'd be just as willing to accomodate all sorts of human rights violations in your or my own communities if that were the political winds at the moments and they stood to make a profit from it.
When the boot that kicks you into the pit in which you and your family will be shot to death leaves a 'Nike' imprint on your forehead, you may begin to empathize with what I have to say.
|
|
|
10 Sep 2005, 00:51
|
#39
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbass
By default no one has any rights to anything at all unless explicitly stated in their constitution or law.
|
I'd like to see the constitution which explicitly stated people's right to masturbate, pick their nose, hop on one leg, name their child Popadom, tell fart jokes, love someone called Delilah, and so on.
And not all legal systems work this way anyway. As far as I'm aware, you're generally allowed to do anything NOT prohibited by law. You live in a pretty strange world if you think everyone was holding their breath waiting for the constitution to be written which gave them the right to exhale.
Quote:
We can try to make examples of these companies but I'm positive Google or anyone else would have done the same.
|
Perhaps, but we can only really respond to actual events and not to "what might have been". Apple probably would have abused a monopoly position if they were in MSFTs position but they weren't, and so they can't be held account. Yahoo seem to have done something a bit shitty and so they're criticised for it. Whether other companies would have done the same thing isn't that important in this context.
|
|
|
10 Sep 2005, 03:29
|
#40
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbass
By default no one has any rights to anything at all unless explicitly stated in their constitution or law.
Freedom of speach is probably the worst offender, I hate how people keep trying to apply their own beliefs or countries laws upon others. In Australia as an example, much unlike the US constitution there is nothing in ours that explicitly states we have a right here to freedom of speach, we generally assume so and I hear the general public ranting about it here all the time, but I wonder if they are aware there is nothing legally that would prevent our Government if they should so choose to outlaw freedom of speach all together.
|
Maybe your government should outlaw elections lol!
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
10 Sep 2005, 10:04
|
#41
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,290
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
Do you have any evidence for this? Please note, when I say natural I do not mean to say "humans have done it previously". That is a different debate.
It might be that human beings would be ultimately happier in groups of 20-50 but there's no sensible way we could integrate that into a law. However, the fundamental root of human consciousness is is individual cognition and that lies (or should lie) at the root of much of our politics as a result. Freedom of expression is merely an extension of that.
|
how do you know? 100 years ago, people might have said that its only natural that europeans controll the rest of the world, because we are developed further than anyone else. its a bad word.
Quote:
I believe there is. It's not "universal" as such - it only really applies to human beings. A race of intelligent insects (for instance) might have no conception of individual freedom as their cognition might operate purely through collective processes. But I'd say it's universal as far as human beings apply.
|
then why cant different societies have diffrent values aswell?
Quote:
Well, this really depends what you're talking about. As many others have said - where I disagree with you of course I think I am right and you are wrong. If I thought I was wrong and you were right then I would simply adopt your opinion. So yes, of course it means everyone else is wrong.
Of course, there are many issues where there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Whether punk rock is better than heavy metal is a matter of personal taste and of no real consequences either way. However, when it comes ot human rights it is far more dangerous to say "Well, in China the people don't have rights because Asians are naturally cruel and don't believe in freedom like the white man".
|
i didnt say that we are better than the chinese, we just live in a different society. a dictatorship also has its advantages. you have less responsibilities, quicker political decisions, etc. ofc, it all fully depends on your dictator and, if you look at Bush, even a democracy and freedom of speech cant protect you from a total nutjob running your country.
Quote:
Furthermore, there is no foundation for such a belief as in every culture in every society in every period of history there is a general struggle towards personal freedom, towards intellectual and spiritual betterment, towards fulfillment of what I'd call the human spirit (or species character if you prefer).
|
that bis maybe true for europe in thev last few 100 years.
Quote:
Finally : Yes, of course people are different. I am not saying people must "behave" freely. It's just they should have the option to. If someone wants to be whipped all day long, then fine - that's there business. But if they don't want to be whipped and they are being whipped - well I believe that's all our businesses.
|
Thats a bit difficult, isnt it?
Quote:
In this particular case, Yahoo is an American (or "Western") company. Criticism has centred on them, not the Chinese Government (in this thread I mean). You are right (to an extent) that it can be rather arrogant to blandly tell how the rest of the world should live - but we're not doing that. We're saying that companies that operate in the west should behave better.
|
Well, they want to make money in China. When you want to make money in China, you need to respect chinese laws. In the end, they might lose more money in the american and european market than they gained in the chinese market, but except to stay completly out of china i dont know what else they could have done.
__________________
im not tolerant, i just dont care.
|
|
|
10 Sep 2005, 10:20
|
#42
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by wu_trax
how do you know? 100 years ago, people might have said that its only natural that europeans controll the rest of the world, because we are developed further than anyone else. its a bad word.
|
I don't believe that it is a "bad" word, but we can disagree on that. And what do you mean "how do you know"? How do I know what? That human's think independently of each other? Well, that's a simple observation. I'm not sure what you mean.
Quote:
then why cant different societies have diffrent values aswell?
|
They can. I never suggested they can't. Talking about what societies "want" is strange because it's difficult to tell / measure, but an individual as I say - can choose to live however they wish. Social groups can choose to live in a certain way if they wish, but one individual cannot make that choice for another (which is kind of your point too). I am not saying the Chinese have to have a western style democracy (indeed, I don't want them to) I am saying that a Chinese person who is being prosecuted in China obviously doesn't want to live like that. I very much doubt he is the only one.
Quote:
i didnt say that we are better than the chinese, we just live in a different society.
|
Absolutley. But we're all human beings and therefore we share common traits. It's possible that a Chinese society is so different that they all want to work 80 hour weeks (this seems unlikely, but whatever) - but that still doesn't change the fact that China is made up of human beings.
I actually believe that the Chinese Communist Party probably do enjoy the broad support of the majority of the country. However, that is an untestable thesis since that is never verified. If a dictatorship does enjoy such strong support (i.e. they "want" to live in a society without certain civil rights) then this would be easy to test in a vote or whatnot. But China will be remodelled by it's own workers, not by you or I (which is where we agree I suppose).
Quote:
that bis maybe true for europe in thev last few 100 years.
|
No, it's true for every period in human history that I am aware of. It's certainly true for the "third world" now.
Quote:
Thats a bit difficult, isnt it?
|
Not really. On the level of individuals, if you go out in the street and see someone being attacked - you can intervene (if this seems appropriate / safe). On an international level we cannot go round doing whatever we want for fairly obvious reasons, but what we can try to do is put pressure on companies like Yahoo to not support odious actions abroad. There's a lot more we can do too, but that's a start.
Quote:
Well, they want to make money in China.[...]but except to stay completly out of china i dont know what else they could have done.
|
I am aware they want to make money. However, they can't hide behind that as a catch-all for supporting evil wherever. The Yahoo board is made up of human beings and as such they are moral agents with responsibilities to act in a reasonably ethical fashion to other human beings. If the choice is "behaving in a morally reprehensible manner" vs "making money" then that's no choice at all. Similarly, I could go and rob old people of their savings and then say "Well, I want to make money". But I don't. Not because of the law (since I break the law in various other ways regularly) but because it's wrong.
Unfortunately, such a course is not always possible for corporations due to the legal obligation to maximise profit in a public company. As such, we may wish to re-examine the legal and political basis of our own society.
|
|
|
10 Sep 2005, 16:56
|
#43
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,290
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
I don't believe that it is a "bad" word, but we can disagree on that. And what do you mean "how do you know"? How do I know what? That human's think independently of each other? Well, that's a simple observation. I'm not sure what you mean.
|
sometimes i have some serious doubt about that.
Quote:
They can. I never suggested they can't. Talking about what societies "want" is strange because it's difficult to tell / measure, but an individual as I say - can choose to live however they wish. Social groups can choose to live in a certain way if they wish, but one individual cannot make that choice for another (which is kind of your point too). I am not saying the Chinese have to have a western style democracy (indeed, I don't want them to) I am saying that a Chinese person who is being prosecuted in China obviously doesn't want to live like that. I very much doubt he is the only one.
|
its not what a society wants but how a society works. you cant just turn a country upside down because you believe you know the true way of live.
Quote:
Absolutley. But we're all human beings and therefore we share common traits. It's possible that a Chinese society is so different that they all want to work 80 hour weeks (this seems unlikely, but whatever) - but that still doesn't change the fact that China is made up of human beings.
I actually believe that the Chinese Communist Party probably do enjoy the broad support of the majority of the country. However, that is an untestable thesis since that is never verified. If a dictatorship does enjoy such strong support (i.e. they "want" to live in a society without certain civil rights) then this would be easy to test in a vote or whatnot. But China will be remodelled by it's own workers, not by you or I (which is where we agree I suppose).
|
you can hardly hold a vote if your way of live doesnt include votes. you cant choose to be unfree, because that choice already makes you free (or something like that). if the chinese are happy with their current way of live, then let them be happy. if they are not they will change their system eventually, to what, i dont know.
Quote:
I am aware they want to make money. However, they can't hide behind that as a catch-all for supporting evil wherever. The Yahoo board is made up of human beings and as such they are moral agents with responsibilities to act in a reasonably ethical fashion to other human beings. If the choice is "behaving in a morally reprehensible manner" vs "making money" then that's no choice at all. Similarly, I could go and rob old people of their savings and then say "Well, I want to make money". But I don't. Not because of the law (since I break the law in various other ways regularly) but because it's wrong.
Unfortunately, such a course is not always possible for corporations due to the legal obligation to maximise profit in a public company. As such, we may wish to re-examine the legal and political basis of our own society.
|
as a company today you simply cant ignore the chinese market. while in the information technology support for government oppression is pretty obvious, all other companies who invest in china also support that oppression to some extent. if you really feel this strongly about it, you would have to boycott every multi-national company that invested in china, which is pretty much all of them.
__________________
im not tolerant, i just dont care.
|
|
|
10 Sep 2005, 17:05
|
#44
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Yahoo, Microsoft and China
Quote:
Originally Posted by wu_trax
you can hardly hold a vote if your way of live doesnt include votes. you cant choose to be unfree, because that choice already makes you free (or something like that). if the chinese are happy with their current way of live, then let them be happy. if they are not they will change their system eventually, to what, i dont know.
|
This is one of the most confused paragraphs I've ever read on the internet.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:10.
| |