The request for data from Google

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't feel the need to be consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[BluffTHIS!]

You are the one needing a course in logic. You can't construct a syllogism of my statements above which is flawed, as they don't depend on consistency. My arguments rest on objective moral standards. Of course if you wish to maintain that censure of pedophilia is subjective, then feel free to show yourself without conscience or decency.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
You are the one needing a course in logic. You can't construct a syllogism of my statements above which is flawed, as they don't depend on consistency. My arguments rest on objective moral standards. Of course if you wish to maintain that censure of pedophilia is subjective, then feel free to show yourself without conscience or decency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strawman, Ad hominem and shifting the onus of proof all in one post. I have to admit, even I'm impressed.

I never condoned child pornography. I'm simply trying to show the inconsistencies in your arguments.

You can claim that moral standards are objective, but being that they have changed over the course of time and differ among cultures and indivduals, I think it's hard to prove that they are, although you're more than welcome to do so.

You stated that Google was wrong for not allowing the free dissemination of information in China. You later said that they would wrong for NOT restricting the free dissemination of information.

Now I'm not disagreeing with you that child pornography is morally reprehensible; I doubt that many people would. I'm simply curious how you can, in nearly the same breath, both condemn and applaud the restriction of the freeflow of information.

[BluffTHIS!]

This thread is indeed about standards and not logic. So do you disagree with the standard of allowing people anywhere in the world free access to information, except that which is used to harm others? If not, or if you think shareholder profit is a higher standard, then say why. Or say why helping a repressive regime repress is a higher standard.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
So do you disagree with the standard of allowing people anywhere in the world free access to information, except that which is used to harm others?

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds like a fine standard to me, but exactly what information is harmful? Is a video of a 17 year old girl having sex harmful if she is a willing participant and sufficiently compensated? Are the Federalist Papers or Common Sense harmful because they could lead people to revolt against their government which would lead to political turmoil? I think that logical people could come to different conclusions about both based on differing moral standards.

[ QUOTE ]
If not, or if you think shareholder profit is a higher standard, then say why.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly don't believe that shareholder profit is more important than the freeflow of information, but that Google, as a company, certainly has an obligation to their shareholders. Having to choose one, I personally believe that the freeflow of information should be more important, but there are certainly cases (such as in China) where they can not allow the freeflow of information (due to Chinese law) but certainly can fulfill their obligations to their shareholders.

[ QUOTE ]
Or say why helping a repressive regime repress is a higher standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I think that logical people could draw different conclusions about whether or not Google providing their services insofar as it does not violate Chinese law is necessarily "helping" the repressive regime (as opposed to simply not actively disrupting them).

[tomdemaine]

On a completly unrelated note, what are your opinions on Nike hiring third world children for pennies a day on the grounds that that pay level is better than nothing and that Nike have a resposibility to pursue profit?

[mmbt0ne]

When corporations start practicing morals over profit maximization we're going to be in big trouble. As you've already seen, they have enough money to get anything they want done.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The funny thing, and one which shows the double standards of google, is that they won't help the US gov to find terrorists, but they will help the Chinese gov by blocking access of their citizens to websites and search terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

aren't they just following the laws of both counties?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is a law in the U.S. that states that Google can't turn over the information the U.S. government seeks. It's a business decision by Google.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure that Google would turn over the records in the U.S. if a court told them to do so. They just don't trust the government.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
The funny thing, and one which shows the double standards of google, is that they won't help the US gov to find terrorists, but they will help the Chinese gov by blocking access of their citizens to websites and search terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good Post my Christian Brother. As you will notice from my recent posts. I am currently in the process of indentifying the reds in our midst in the two plus two community.