4 ms·

If so, that doesn't excuse American citizens profiting off the suppression of civilians in other countries.

mieseratte 7y ago
> If so, that doesn't excuse American citizens profiting off the suppression of civilians in other countries. If the product can be trivially sourced elsewhere, what's the point? Do you believe it might hurt their image and sales elsewhere? Or is this just a moral line you hold dear?
- sterileopinions 7y ago
  >If the product can be trivially sourced elsewhere, what's the point To not be complicit in the suppression of people's rights in other countries? What ISN'T the point? >Or is this just a moral line you hold dear Ummm, yeah? Are you going to take the position that your contribution to the suppression of other people for the purposes of profit is justifiable because it'll just happen anyways? That's kind of a really idiotic stance to take.
  - mieseratte 7y ago
    Well, that's your opinion to hold, but I'm a bit more realpolitik about things. Unless withholding the materials are likely to damage police operational capability, it's an empty feel-good gesture. > That's kind of a really idiotic stance to take. I would kindly ask you drop the ad hominems.
    - sterileopinions 7y ago
      There is nothing practical about your stance though, so you can't really call it realpolitik. You are being overly charitable about how you've arrived at your position. >it's an empty feel-good gesture. Not really, by not continuing trade you lend less credence to the actions of the government. You think you're being intelligent about what's happening here but it's really just a case of you not understanding how actions are perceived by other organizations.
      - mieseratte 7y ago
        > There is nothing practical about your stance though, so you can't really call it realpolitik. What isn't practical about it exactly? It is a decision with consequences with unclear benefit, predicated upon a moral stance. > You are being overly charitable about how you've arrived at your position. Well, my initial comment started off with a question prompting your moral hardline stance, so I'm making a bit of an assumption. I've also tried to take care to preface my stance with it's applicability as relates to pragmatism. Should it turn out the firm is the only possible firm that could supply the product, I would feel very strongly they should withhold sale based on my personal beliefs. It also bears pointing out charitable interpretation is not only a rule of this site but a great principle in discourse. > Not really, by not continuing trade you lend less credence to the actions of the government. Of which government? The Chinese or the US? If the latter, it isn't as if we have a long history of fair treatment of foreign nations as relates to commerce. Belief that this is some kind of abberation is rather naive. The government sells lethal arms to conflict zones and dictators with little issue.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      it's an empty feel-good gesture. I would kindly ask you drop the ad hominems. Physician, heal thyself.
  - artificial 7y ago
    Do you only buy products from company’s where your politics align? For example, no Chinese products because that supports a communist regime? Not using Google because they actively suppress information in China?
    - sterileopinions 7y ago
      If you're going to make a comparison you should do so where there is both power and information parity with the entity in question. Not only am I not a commercial entity engaging in trade with these organizations, but it is technically impossible for me as a singular individual with no over all commercial power to engage in commerce in any form without involving Chinese products. And there are plenty of cases where people unknowingly do this despite their best efforts. I can tell you this though: I'm not the commercial entity making a conscious and forthright decision to do it. And the products I interact with are not designed with the express purpose and utility of crowd control, however right or wrong. The question you're proposing isn't equivalent to what's being discussed and is kind of just silly.

> If so, that doesn't excuse American citizens profiting off the suppression of civilians in other countries. If the product can be trivially sourced elsewhere, what's the point? Do you believe it might hurt their image and sales elsewhere? Or is this just a moral line you hold dear?

sterileopinions 7y ago
>If the product can be trivially sourced elsewhere, what's the point To not be complicit in the suppression of people's rights in other countries? What ISN'T the point? >Or is this just a moral line you hold dear Ummm, yeah? Are you going to take the position that your contribution to the suppression of other people for the purposes of profit is justifiable because it'll just happen anyways? That's kind of a really idiotic stance to take.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  Well, that's your opinion to hold, but I'm a bit more realpolitik about things. Unless withholding the materials are likely to damage police operational capability, it's an empty feel-good gesture. > That's kind of a really idiotic stance to take. I would kindly ask you drop the ad hominems.
  - sterileopinions 7y ago
    There is nothing practical about your stance though, so you can't really call it realpolitik. You are being overly charitable about how you've arrived at your position. >it's an empty feel-good gesture. Not really, by not continuing trade you lend less credence to the actions of the government. You think you're being intelligent about what's happening here but it's really just a case of you not understanding how actions are perceived by other organizations.
    - mieseratte 7y ago
      > There is nothing practical about your stance though, so you can't really call it realpolitik. What isn't practical about it exactly? It is a decision with consequences with unclear benefit, predicated upon a moral stance. > You are being overly charitable about how you've arrived at your position. Well, my initial comment started off with a question prompting your moral hardline stance, so I'm making a bit of an assumption. I've also tried to take care to preface my stance with it's applicability as relates to pragmatism. Should it turn out the firm is the only possible firm that could supply the product, I would feel very strongly they should withhold sale based on my personal beliefs. It also bears pointing out charitable interpretation is not only a rule of this site but a great principle in discourse. > Not really, by not continuing trade you lend less credence to the actions of the government. Of which government? The Chinese or the US? If the latter, it isn't as if we have a long history of fair treatment of foreign nations as relates to commerce. Belief that this is some kind of abberation is rather naive. The government sells lethal arms to conflict zones and dictators with little issue.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    it's an empty feel-good gesture. I would kindly ask you drop the ad hominems. Physician, heal thyself.
- artificial 7y ago
  Do you only buy products from company’s where your politics align? For example, no Chinese products because that supports a communist regime? Not using Google because they actively suppress information in China?
  - sterileopinions 7y ago
    If you're going to make a comparison you should do so where there is both power and information parity with the entity in question. Not only am I not a commercial entity engaging in trade with these organizations, but it is technically impossible for me as a singular individual with no over all commercial power to engage in commerce in any form without involving Chinese products. And there are plenty of cases where people unknowingly do this despite their best efforts. I can tell you this though: I'm not the commercial entity making a conscious and forthright decision to do it. And the products I interact with are not designed with the express purpose and utility of crowd control, however right or wrong. The question you're proposing isn't equivalent to what's being discussed and is kind of just silly.