|
|
|
|
|
|
by sterileopinions
2483 days 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. |
|
|
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.