Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 16th Jun 2011 22:50 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
IBM "Today International Business Machines celebrated a relative rarity in the tech business - its one hundredth anniversary. By contrast Google is a mere 12 years old, Apple is 35, Microsoft is 36, and Hewlett-Packard is 72 years old." One of the most important companies in the computer industry. Congratulations, IBM, on to the next century! And we get to use our IBM logo for once. Yay!
Thread beginning with comment 477449
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Balance the view
by spanglywires on Thu 16th Jun 2011 23:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Balance the view"
spanglywires
Member since:
2006-10-23

'Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons'

The very uncontested situation that IBM colloborated knowingly or possibly (but less likely unknowingly) through a 90% owned subsiduary leaves at very least a serious question mark on corporate responsibility and management ethos.

As for the boot analogy, no, I wouldn't sell boots to to a genocidal dictator, its called a moral decision. Much as I won't buy products tested on animals, I avoid IBM hardware and software wherever I have the purchasing decision. That is a moral stance I have taken because I value the victims.

If you choose to sell your boots to genocidal dictators, that is your moral stance - I judge you not. After all, the B in IBM stands for business.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Balance the view
by tylerdurden on Fri 17th Jun 2011 00:16 in reply to "RE[2]: Balance the view"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17


If you choose to sell your boots to genocidal dictators, that is your moral stance - I judge you not.


Technically, you are indeed judging

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Balance the view
by christian on Fri 17th Jun 2011 10:36 in reply to "RE[2]: Balance the view"
christian Member since:
2005-07-06


As for the boot analogy, no, I wouldn't sell boots to to a genocidal dictator, its called a moral decision. Much as I won't buy products tested on animals, I avoid IBM hardware and software wherever I have the purchasing decision. That is a moral stance I have taken because I value the victims.


I guess you avoid all German products as well? And Japanese products, they were really nasty in the war. And those nasty Allies, levelling several German cities killing civilians indiscriminately, along with the two atomic bombs also killing indiscriminately, I suppose rules you out of buying British and American products as well?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Balance the view
by frajo on Fri 17th Jun 2011 10:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Balance the view"
frajo Member since:
2007-06-29

As for the boot analogy, no, I wouldn't sell boots to to a genocidal dictator, its called a moral decision. Much as I won't buy products tested on animals, I avoid IBM hardware and software wherever I have the purchasing decision. That is a moral stance I have taken because I value the victims.

While I very much appreciate a strong moral stance, I can't resist to doubt its integrity. Where do you draw the line when doing purchasing decisions?
Is a government invading a country under false premises and effectively causing the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people so much better that it doesn't deserve to be "avoided"? (And calling Hitler a "dictator" is somewhat misleading as he had the backing of the larger part of the Germans.)

Reply Parent Score: 2