21 Jun 06
Originally posted by RedmikeWell for one this is a prison sentence and not a death sentence 😕
As I said, we cannot, as individuals, do much about the Chinese government.
But we can do something about Yahoo.
If the law of a country are oppressing their citizens, then it is right to put pressure on companies who assist them in this.
Why is this any different from preventing companies selling arms to oppressive regimes?
Furthermore they're not required by law to sell said firearms.
There is quite a bit of difference.
21 Jun 06
Originally posted by Positional PlayerBut we implement sanctions against (some) oppressive regimes - we prevent companies from selling things to Iran, for example.
Well for one this is a prison sentence and not a death sentence 😕
Furthermore they're not required by law to sell said firearms.
There is quite a bit of difference.
Why shouldn't we, as individuals, express our opinions on Yahoo's actions?
21 Jun 06
Originally posted by RedmikeI'm not trying to stop anyone from expressing their opinion.
But we implement sanctions against (some) oppressive regimes - we prevent companies from selling things to Iran, for example.
Why shouldn't we, as individuals, express our opinions on Yahoo's actions?
I'm saying it's silly to condemn Yahoo for complying with the law.
Anyway I don't support corporate sanctions against Iran either.
22 Jun 06
Originally posted by Positional PlayerNo, but you won't condemn Yahoo for complicity in suppressing someone else's opinion.
I'm not trying to stop anyone from expressing their opinion.
I'm saying it's silly to condemn Yahoo for complying with the law.
Anyway I don't support corporate sanctions against Iran either.
23 Jun 06
I think you are focussing on the wrong target here to be honest. The main fault lies with the government of the People's Republic of China.
It's a one party system and as such is not democratically accountable, so as long as it can keep the commoners down, it can do pretty much whatever it likes.
Surely the fault lies not with a company that complies with a bad law, but rather with those who put that law in place?
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by Positional PlayerI agree that the Chinese government are at fault here, but we have no way of applying direct pressure on them to change.
I think you are focussing on the wrong target here to be honest. The main fault lies with the government of the People's Republic of China.
It's a one party system and as such is not democratically accountable, so as long as it can keep the commoners down, it can do pretty much whatever it likes.
Surely the fault lies not with a company that complies with a bad law, but rather with those who put that law in place?
However, if we apply pressure on companies who co-operate with them, then we indirectly apply pressure on the Chines regime.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by RedmikeMakes sense.
I agree that the Chinese government are at fault here, but we have no way of applying direct pressure on them to change.
However, if we apply pressure on companies who co-operate with them, then we indirectly apply pressure on the Chines regime.
Also I'd say that although Yahoo may be playing by the rules of the Chinese Government in order to do business there. There is no rule saying that they have to do business with Totalitarian regimes in the first place.
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by RedmikeI do not think that the Chinese government will care one bit whether people boycott Yahoo or not.
I agree that the Chinese government are at fault here, but we have no way of applying direct pressure on them to change.
However, if we apply pressure on companies who co-operate with them, then we indirectly apply pressure on the Chines regime.
Obviously, Yahoo would care, but their only recourse would be to pull out of the Chinese market. How would that help anything?
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by NargagunaStrange how few people remember what Ghandi did for a living, isn't it? Of course, he was just a waster, and India should still be under Imperial control, right Narg?
Yahoo is motivated by profit according to you.
Who is not, including you who find it most profitable to live on 'benefits', instead of working for your living?