 |
| |
|
|
DaShi
|
 |
The Taste of Japan
Sep 2000
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
The funny thing about this thread is that my ex-housemate was also named Hu - we called him Hu Man Bing (true story).
And to be disappointed in HMB, you'd have to entertain expectations of... well, anything. So he never did prove disappointing, really!
My residency in China was almost entirely under Deng and Jiang, so I don't pretend to any authority about Hu. But I don't think it's really fair to call the man a "big disappointment". He's consolidated the grip of the ruling party, overseen continued breakneck growth, shaken his saber at the Japanese and Taiwanese, and extended the cordial olive branch of peaceful hegemony to India, Pakistan, Russia, and various other neighbors. I'd say that counts as status quo.
Now, if Hu had orchestrated a disastrous economic reversal, coupled with a secession of the component ethnic minorities in the northwest and Tibet, while standing helpless as foreign powers shelled and seized key port cities, disassembling the nation's production centers one by bloody one as their armies marched through the burning embers of the nation's capital singing "This is not a full-blown rape / Lo - it is merely an incident!" - THEN I might feel compelled to give gentle voice to feelings of disappointment.
Same goes if they lose to the Germans again in the World Cup like they did in 2002. |
I think a lot of people had fairly high expectations for him to be more progressive and move closer toward democracy. Hence their disappointment. You seem to have very low expectations of him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frankychan
|
 |
In the Kingdom of Hawaii (CPA Member)
Sep 2001
time: 19:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sprayber
The problem with the Chinese government (and those that try to explain thier behavior away) is that old griviences are used as excuses to grab everything and anything that they can. Franky wants the west to look over the Chinese because that is just the way they are and they can't help it. Taiwan should be given to China because way back when it was Chinese territory or it's goverment and infrastructure is somehow Chinese (hey but at least Hawaii will never be independent either) Problem with Franky's ideas is that a few million Taiwanese feel differently about it, but hey they aren't anywhere near as important as what those on the mainland are they? As long as the CCP officials in the capital feel good about themselves who cares what the people in Taiwan think. And we all know that the average Chinese peasant will be much better off with the people of Taiwan suffering the same fate as they. I think you have been playing too much SMAC Franky. Not everyone feels the need to answer to the call of the Chairman. I always liked playing the Spartans but damned if I would ever want to live in that enviroment.
And the only apology the Chinese people could really use at this point is one from it's own government. Too bad the CCP isn't as interested in those issues as they are dragging the Japanese out. |
 Ok ok, so my thoughts parallel SMAC somewhat. But taking in the BIG picture, if I lived in his utopia, I know I'd probably regret it. However, my main problem is that lots of people here in America are all like "OMG!!!11!! China is Evil cause they are Communist! They want Taiwan, Destroy them!!!"
I'm tired of hearing that. I want to show people the other side of the argument (personal feelings aside). If people just take the time to try and understand the other side of the argument objectively and without personal bias, I believe there would be a GREATER global understanding of things. Unfortunately though, many people aren't willing to take the time and see things differently.
Of course, my personal feelings might not want to be what most of the people here agree with, I at least can understand the opposing point of view. Taiwan has a great government, its people enjoy a little more social freedoms. Of course I love that, who wouldn't?
But again I'll bring up history's sake and say that Taiwan IS a part of China. China has over the last couple of decades, reclaimed all it's lost lands centuries ago, and I believe that China see's itself as incomplete until it gains ALL it's lost lands.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sprayber
|
 |
Dixie
Oct 2000
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frankychan
Ok ok, so my thoughts parallel SMAC somewhat. But taking in the BIG picture, if I lived in his utopia, I know I'd probably regret it. However, my main problem is that lots of people here in America are all like "OMG!!!11!! China is Evil cause they are Communist! They want Taiwan, Destroy them!!!" |
I don't care what they call themselves Franky. The Chinese goverment is **** because of what it does to it's people. You can talk all you want about what you think others think but it doesn't make it so.
quote:
I'm tired of hearing that. I want to show people the other side of the argument (personal feelings aside). If people just take the time to try and understand the other side of the argument objectively and without personal bias, I believe there would be a GREATER global understanding of things. Unfortunately though, many people aren't willing to take the time and see things differently. |
Again my personal feelings have nothing to do with what I think of the CCP but I suspect those who side with China against the US have a lot of personal reasons for doing so. It was you who kept talking about developing without American influience as if Japan and S Korea were American colonies. We face stiff competition from both countries which is good but I don't see how you get that their situation is somehow worse than China's unless of course its your bias coming out.
quote:
Of course, my personal feelings might not want to be what most of the people here agree with, I at least can understand the opposing point of view. Taiwan has a great government, its people enjoy a little more social freedoms. Of course I love that, who wouldn't? |
Apparently you don't think its so great cause your so eager for China to take it all over. If Taiwan has a great goverment and they enjoy more social freedoms, then why in the hell would they want to take a step back and what is more interesting why would YOU want them to just to satisfy the dreams of beaucrats in the CCP? Can you tell me that Franky? Is it so important to make them feel better about themselves at the expense of the Taiwanese?
quote:
But again I'll bring up history's sake and say that Taiwan IS a part of China. China has over the last couple of decades, reclaimed all it's lost lands centuries ago, and I believe that China see's itself as incomplete until it gains ALL it's lost lands. |
So the Ukraine goes back to Russia, Greece goes back to the Ottomons, Germany gets all its terrorties back. Lithauana gets restored to its former glory, the Scandanvian countries get all scrambled up again? Can you start to see why your little arguement starts to get ****ed up? And what exactly is China's complete self? Where do you Franky the wise draw China's borders? More importantly where does the CCP think China's borders should be.
One thing I'd like to know, are the Chinese so damn depressed about their stature in the world that only through expansion can they be appeased. I thought only the Russians had low national self esteem issues. Are the Chinese depressed to? Should we restore Rome why we are in the business of easing National Pride issues?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sprayber
Apparently China has bad self esteem issues |
No doubt.
So did Hitler, but Britain and France declared war. (But not on Stalin who did the same thing as Hitler, and worse.)
So did Saddam, and Britain, France and the US declared war on him when he invaded and took Kuwait.
When Britain, France and Israel took the Sinai and Suez, we told them to bug out. They did.
When the commies tried to take SV, only the US, but not the Brits and France (for obvious reasons) tried to stop them. But Johnson adopted a no win strategy.
When the commies tried to take S. Korea, the UN adopted an no victory strategy, and would have done nothing at all had the USSR not skip the Security Council meeting due to stupidity.
No one did anything about Stalin before WWII, or after.
No one did anything about Red China aggressions.
No one but the US (and perhaps the Japanese) tells the Chinese to cool it over Taiwan. However, we did nothing about Turkestan and Tibet.
The double-standard is quite apparent. Communist countries get a pass, while Western countries (including former colonies like Iraq) are held to a much higher standard. If they invade anybody, they are villified to no end.
But the commies seem to have a god-given right to invade as they please without complaint by the New York Times, the London Times and other liberal media outlets.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frankychan
|
|
In the Kingdom of Hawaii (CPA Member)
Sep 2001
time: 19:35
|
|
Bosh:
I think the question is why should you NOT care. If you look at China's past aquisitions in the past 50 years (barring the west, because I don't know a damn thing about that) it's been trying its damned hardest to get back it's "lost lands". Again, nevermind the land itself. It's the governmental entity itself that I (personally) believe China is concerned about...the re-absorption of all it's lost 'peoples'.
Ned:
AFAIK, in the dealings with N. Korea...ok, in the past they (China) supported N. Korea because they were a Communist regime. But in recent years, China's been pretty tired of N. Korea's total warmongering. If your neighbor has nukes and is willing to launch them, wouldn't you get tired of it? In my experiences, China has been pretty much isolationist. Don't Mess with me, I won't mess with you. The talks with US and NKorea over the nukes should be a good example over this.
N. Korea (IMHO) is still royally pissed over things that happened in WW2. S. Korea is going diplomatic while N. Korea is going the more warmongering state.
To say that China and N. Korea are both one and the same is a total farce. HOWEVER, if what I'm saying isn't what you are talking about, I will retract my statements.
Sprayber:
Ok, of all these guys on Apolyton...I'll say you have my utmost respect and loyalty. (Something that is hard to gain). I will counterpoint your statements with my utmost regret...(sorry man)
1st point. Of course what I think doesn't necessarily make it truth. But in the same vein, I don't think that what others think necessarily make it TRUTH as well. Just because what us Americans think is right, doesn't mean that what others of a different culture think is "right" as well. What 'we' as the American culture is 'right' doesn't mean that the people in another culture think is 'right' in their culture.
2nd point. Ok, I'll admit that my personal bias may be involved with the Japanese and South Korean development under US influence. I'll concede to that. BUT, at the same time, I would think that many people would undoubtably agree that the S. Korean as well as Japanese culture and it's developments have NOT been influence in a large majority by American culture. Shoot, friggin Japan is (almost) treated as an outpost of America for Asia. My engineer friend at Pearl Harbor said that S. Koreans are so heavily influence by the US, it's like the S. Korean government bows to us just because if N. Korea attacks, we'd *****slap them N. Korean commies back into the stoneage.
3rd point:
Huh. Ok. I'll try and explain myself. While I support re-unification, there is only up to a certain extent which I will support it. If Mainland China decides to land troops on Taiwans shore, of course I won't agree with that. I would EXTREMELY support it if Taiwan and China came to some agreement (ala Hong Kong)...although that's highly unlikey...that the two came to a unification agreement. While I support mainland China in it's attempt at reunification, I will not support a military attempt at the same cause. I'd rather have the two use diplomatic channels to come to grips into the unification into 'Greater China'. Again, I will say that IF China uses miltary action against unification against Taiwan...I would oppose it. Despite my beliefs.
4th point:
Ukraine, I don't know much about. As for Greece, they should retain their indepence because they were an independent nation that was taken over by the Ottoman Empire. Lithuania? Sorry, I need to refresh myself on their history. Ok, I will admit that my first argument starts to get fangled up by my first argument, however...As far as what I have studied, China was FORCED into these leases by cannon-port. They basically gave up large portions of their land (port cities) in order to retain their right at self governance. These past couple of decades have seen that China is regaining all it's 'lost' lands. Hong Kong was a big one. And again, while I do not want to see Taiwan reunified under gunport like China once was, I can at least undertand where the PRC is coming from.
4th point (part B):
quote:
One thing I'd like to know, are the Chinese so damn depressed about their stature in the world that only through expansion can they be appeased. I thought only the Russians had low national self esteem issues. Are the Chinese depressed to? Should we restore Rome why we are in the business of easing National Pride issues? |
Well...I can't really speculate. All I can decypher is that China has been on the planet longer than all of other nations (barring Mesopotamia...maybe). AFAIK, China was thriving, then came the Western nations with their guns, and all of a sudden, their dynasty came to an end. Shoot, I'll support American to the end, but to just ignore it's worst parts of history is crazy.
Commodore Perry and his black ships? The Opium Wars?
5th point:
Of course I care about Taiwan and it's people. BUT...(big but) I do believe that Taiwan, because of it's foundation, is that it is IN A LARGE PART, still a part of mainland China. HOWEVER, I do not want to see Taiwan invaded. Again, I want to see Taiwan turned over to the PRC diplomatically and by peacefully means. Hell, I know that this will not happen....but I do not want to see Taiwan invaded by the PRC. I'd be mad as hell if they did that. Regardless if I want to see Taiwan back in 'Chinese' hands.
This whole situation is ocmplex. Of course I would like it if Taiwan was returned to China proper diplomatically...BUT, if China proper was to invade Taiwan, of course I would oppose it.
Diplomacy is always a better solution.
Last edited by Frankychan on 30-04-2005 at 12:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
aneeshm
|
 |
Indore , Madhya Pradesh
Jul 2001
time: 11:05
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by trevie jake
If the government goes down, it's not unlikely that the disenchanted poor left behind by capitalism will put an ultra-extremist Maoist government back into power. That's assuming that some form of government is put back into power. |
Let them . In this capitalist world , it won't survive long , if at all . They are free do be their own undoing . Why should I stop you if you want to kill yourself ? You are no concern of mine . And I would really like it if there is anarchy . It might lead to India getting back territory lost during the Sino-Indian war in return for , umm , other things ?
Another thing is that capitalism does not leave behind disenfranchised poor . It leaves a person to their natural state . Capitalism is an economic system where everyone has fundamental rights protected, and nothing else . Capitalism , by the way , is a natural extension of democracy . "Voting with your feet" , I recall it was called ( though now democracy has lost its meaning , and becoe mob rule by whichever sect happens to be most popular ) .
The point is , many people are weak of will , and make wrong decisions even when they know they are wrong . It is not the job of the state to attempt to reverse or halt the laws of cause and effect ( cause = bad decision , effect = messed up life ) .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
aneeshm
|
|
Indore , Madhya Pradesh
Jul 2001
time: 11:05
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
This is really weird. I attended the Indian Embassy School in Beijing when I was a wee little nipper, and also had many Indian/Pakistani friends throughout my time in the UK. Not once did I hear any animosity towards China.
It wasn't until much later that I was even aware of some Sino-Indian famous rivalry. And it wasn't until MUCH later that I went online and saw it in action, at places like Urbandictionary and now, Apolyton.
Far out. |
Uh , if I met a Chinese , I would bear him no animosity . Nor would almost any Indian .
It is the Chinese state and Chinese government policies that Indians tend to hate with a passion . I have a seperate opinion of Chinese ( as a people ( a positive one ) ) , and of China ( as a country/state ( a very negavie one ) ) . We have a clear seperation , at least mentally , of the people and state of China .
Even if you came to India and lived here , you would find no animosity towards Chinese , only towards China ( in fact , we like the Chinese - lots of cheap goods would have been unavailable without them ) .
So please do not make the mistake of thinking that I or my fellow Indians dislike Chinese - we only dislike China .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
aneeshm
|
|
Indore , Madhya Pradesh
Jul 2001
time: 11:05
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Well Ali, aneeshm's a prat. |
I don't usually resort to personal insults , so I'll refrain . But in general , communists do have this irritating tendency of calling everyone who disagrees with their views some really bad names , and subsequently killing them , if possible . Capitalists don't usually do that , because if they did , they wouldn't be capitalists ( you know , capitalism repects fundamental rights and stuff ) .
But I'm sure there's no need for you to be concerned with such silly things as rights . After all , if I am poor , and you are poorer , then somehow , I am oppressing you , am I not ?
With this sort of reasoning ( or lack thereof ) , no wonder communist countries tend to fail .
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sprayber
|
|
Dixie
Oct 2000
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frankychan
1st point. Of course what I think doesn't necessarily make it truth. But in the same vein, I don't think that what others think necessarily make it TRUTH as well. Just because what us Americans think is right, doesn't mean that what others of a different culture think is "right" as well. What 'we' as the American culture is 'right' doesn't mean that the people in another culture think is 'right' in their culture. |
This has nothing to do what Americans think Franky. The Taiwanese people seem to not want to be apart of your greater China and as far as I'm concerned they are the only ones who can really talk about it with some authority not you or me. If they want to be apart of China then that is up to them and this whole conversation is pointless.
quote:
2nd point. Ok, I'll admit that my personal bias may be involved with the Japanese and South Korean development under US influence. I'll concede to that. BUT, at the same time, I would think that many people would undoubtably agree that the S. Korean as well as Japanese culture and it's developments have NOT been influence in a large majority by American culture. Shoot, friggin Japan is (almost) treated as an outpost of America for Asia. My engineer friend at Pearl Harbor said that S. Koreans are so heavily influence by the US, it's like the S. Korean government bows to us just because if N. Korea attacks, we'd *****slap them N. Korean commies back into the stoneage. |
I dont see the Japanese and S.Koreans as being treated as anything less than equals. Just because our political intrests are similar with response to China doesn't mean they are bowing to us and are outposts. In thinking that you disrespect both of those countries and try to make light of their vast improvment over the past 50 years. Also im sure the US trade negotiators would get a good laugh out of your insistence that Japan was an American outpost and jumped when when we said to.
quote:
Huh. Ok. I'll try and explain myself. While I support re-unification, there is only up to a certain extent which I will support it. If Mainland China decides to land troops on Taiwans shore, of course I won't agree with that. I would EXTREMELY support it if Taiwan and China came to some agreement (ala Hong Kong)...although that's highly unlikey...that the two came to a unification agreement. While I support mainland China in it's attempt at reunification, I will not support a military attempt at the same cause. I'd rather have the two use diplomatic channels to come to grips into the unification into 'Greater China'. Again, I will say that IF China uses miltary action against unification against Taiwan...I would oppose it. Despite my beliefs. |
Again, why should you support it when the PEOPLE of Taiwan does not? If they want to be apart of China then they will do so without talking to you or I. If they don't then what gives you any say in it at all? You keep saying no military invasion but it is clear that is what it will take unless the Chinese mainland becomes a very different place.
quote:
Ukraine, I don't know much about. As for Greece, they should retain their indepence because they were an independent nation that was taken over by the Ottoman Empire. Lithuania? Sorry, I need to refresh myself on their history. Ok, I will admit that my first argument starts to get fangled up by my first argument, however...As far as what I have studied, China was FORCED into these leases by cannon-port. They basically gave up large portions of their land (port cities) in order to retain their right at self governance. These past couple of decades have seen that China is regaining all it's 'lost' lands. Hong Kong was a big one. And again, while I do not want to see Taiwan reunified under gunport like China once was, I can at least undertand where the PRC is coming from. |
The point with all those examples Franky is that the time for going back has already passed. Taiwan has been defacto independent since the split. If you noticed when the southern states separated the Union went to war immediately and didn't wait till 50 years later to make a move. It's been a fact that Taiwan has been separate for all this time. I can understand why the PRC wants it as well. But pride isn't a suffiecent reason for the people of Taiwan to give up what they have just so some beaucrats in the CCP can feel good about their country..
quote:
Well...I can't really speculate. All I can decypher is that China has been on the planet longer than all of other nations (barring Mesopotamia...maybe). AFAIK, China was thriving, then came the Western nations with their guns, and all of a sudden, their dynasty came to an end. Shoot, I'll support American to the end, but to just ignore it's worst parts of history is crazy. |
I DONT CARE HOW LONG CHINA HAS BEEN HERE. It doesn't give them anymore special rights or prestige than any other country on this planet. So you can drop that right where you start. Just because the Chinese people has been content to be oppressed by first their emperors than their chairmans doesn't mean the people of Taiwan needs to continue that stupid tradition. You seem to put all importance on history. History is only a way to understand the way things WERE. You want them to live in that past but the people of Taiwan apparently do not.
quote:
Commodore Perry and his black ships? The Opium Wars? |
Cultural Revolution? Famines? Political prisioners? Your point?
quote:
Of course I care about Taiwan and it's people. BUT...(big but) I do believe that Taiwan, because of it's foundation, is that it is IN A LARGE PART, still a part of mainland China. HOWEVER, I do not want to see Taiwan invaded. Again, I want to see Taiwan turned over to the PRC diplomatically and by peacefully means. Hell, I know that this will not happen....but I do not want to see Taiwan invaded by the PRC. I'd be mad as hell if they did that. Regardless if I want to see Taiwan back in 'Chinese' hands. |
There you go about foundations again. I'm sick of hearing that. Foundations are just that, FOUNDATIONS. Does America belong to the UK because of our foundatioins(smart ass comments asside  )
Your taking history way to important and its really not that important. Byzanthium had its foundations in the Roman Empire but it became something different. Britian had its foundations in numerous sources but it became something different. Why are you so intent on stiffling something that will turn out different? Isn't that the whole point of humanity in the first place. Your so worried about American influience but you seem quiet content for the Chinese to dominate other peoples. Taiwan, Japan and S. Korea are great examples of how they can break out of the oppressive past. They aren't perfect and they have had failures but they seem to be happy just the same thank you very much.
quote:
This whole situation is ocmplex. Of course I would like it if Taiwan was returned to China proper diplomatically...BUT, if China proper was to invade Taiwan, of course I would oppose it.
Diplomacy is always a better solution. |
Not complex at all actually. It comes down to if you believe they should be able to decide for themselves or let history rule their future. For myself, id rather not have my history rule my future.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sprayber
|
|
Dixie
Oct 2000
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by aneeshm
I don't usually resort to personal insults , so I'll refrain . But in general , communists do have this irritating tendency of calling everyone who disagrees with their views some really bad names , and subsequently killing them , if possible . Capitalists don't usually do that , because if they did , they wouldn't be capitalists ( you know , capitalism repects fundamental rights and stuff ) .
But I'm sure there's no need for you to be concerned with such silly things as rights . After all , if I am poor , and you are poorer , then somehow , I am oppressing you , am I not ?
. |
 So true
Although I'm not sure I'd trust capitalism to be much better if there weren't laws against said killings.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:35
|
|
The point I was making was about no one (from the left in particular, but there are exceptions) even suggesting that China had no right to reaquire territories it formerly ruled. There seems to be an underlying assumption that China has a right to do this, even against the will of the people who they "reacquire." I posited that this is sympthomatic of a double-standard in the world. Somehow commies have a right to aggressively acquire "lost territories," while everyone else, but especially the West, do not.
When Hitler began reaquiring "lost territories," the world made war on him. But when Stalin did it, no one complained. When Mao did it, no one complained. When Ho did it, Kennedy complained, but he was naive. (BTW, Kennedy was the chap who wrote the piece on Hitler while still at Harvard.)
I remember recent interviews with the STRANGE Jane Fonda. While she was allowed to explain herself ad naseum by a fawning media, no one asked her why North Vietnam had a right to wage aggressive war to "reacquire," if that term is even permissible when the commies never ruled the South, ever, South Vietnam. She kept on speaking of the North's right to wage war to "expel" the foreigners. But, she completely ignores the fact that South Vietnam had been an independent country for 7 years when the North formed the NLF (Viet Cong) in 1961, and that there were no longer any French or Americans, for that matter, rulling in the South.
But back to China.
If China has a manifest destiny and right to reacquire lost territories it ruled at one time in its history (HAN dynasty? Mongol Empire?), then certainly its long term aims would be to annex both Korea and Vietnam, as well to "reacquire" Taiwan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Admiral
|
 |
of the peace and coexistance movement
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by aneeshm
Let them . In this capitalist world , it won't survive long , if at all . They are free do be their own undoing . Why should I stop you if you want to kill yourself ? You are no concern of mine . And I would really like it if there is anarchy . It might lead to India getting back territory lost during the Sino-Indian war in return for , umm , other things ?
Another thing is that capitalism does not leave behind disenfranchised poor . It leaves a person to their natural state . Capitalism is an economic system where everyone has fundamental rights protected, and nothing else . Capitalism , by the way , is a natural extension of democracy . "Voting with your feet" , I recall it was called ( though now democracy has lost its meaning , and becoe mob rule by whichever sect happens to be most popular ) .
The point is , many people are weak of will , and make wrong decisions even when they know they are wrong . It is not the job of the state to attempt to reverse or halt the laws of cause and effect ( cause = bad decision , effect = messed up life ) . |
So, if we distill your post, we get a couple of points:
A) You differentiate between Democracy and Mob Rule. Now, the real difference between the two is that Mob Rule is more Democratic. So really, you're for less Democracy, or perhaps, as in the US when it was founded, are for Democracy among the landed elite ("Mob Rule" was a term invented by the American founding fathers to negatively frame lower-class participation in politics).
B) Capitalism protects all fundamental human rights, and by extension, any right not protected by Capitalism is not a fundamental right. I have the UN Declaration of Human Rights right here, let's see which ones aren't fundamental:
*"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
Nope. Not a right.
*"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."
Not that one either.
*"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
Nor that.
*"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
Nor that. I could go on, but you get the idea.
C) Everyone who doesn't succeed fail due to a weakness of their will. People born into abject poverty whose only recourse is to work in some sweatshop for fourteen hours every day, where they make almost enough money to feed themselves until they get sick of malnutrition and overwork, and end up dying in the street, could have had a better life if they tried harder.
Last edited by Admiral on 01-05-2005 at 03:06
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
aneeshm
|
|
Indore , Madhya Pradesh
Jul 2001
time: 11:05
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral
So, if we distill your post, we get a couple of points:
A) You differentiate between Democracy and Mob Rule. Now, the real difference between the two is that Mob Rule is more Democratic. So really, you're for less Democracy, or perhaps, as in the US when it was founded, are for Democracy among the landed elite ("Mob Rule" was a term invented by the American founding fathers to negatively frame lower-class participation in politics).
|
Mob rule , as I define it , is when people , using numbers as the only argument , attempt to have their ideas imposed on others , while infringing the rights of said others ( also applies to power without responsibility ) . For example , a person voting for a tax increase for an income bracket of which he is not a member is , in my opinion , a constituent of such a mob ( the "there are more of us than of you , so we get to take your money" mentality ) .
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral
B) Capitalism protects all fundamental human rights, and by extension, any right not protected by Capitalism is not a fundamental right. I have the UN Declaration of Human Rights right here, let's see which ones aren't fundamental:
*"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
Nope. Not a right.
|
Not an explicitly defined right , but anyone trying to stop your conversion ( by force , for example ) will be stopped in a capitalist society , thanks to laws against the use of force ( or fraud ) .
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral
*"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."
Not that one either.
|
That very definitely is a right , because any attempt to force you to remain a slave will be illegal under a capitalist system .
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral
*"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
Nor that.
|
See above .
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral
*"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
Nor that. I could go on, but you get the idea.
|
See above again .
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral
C) Everyone who doesn't succeed fail due to a weakness of their will. People born into abject poverty whose only recourse is to work in some sweatshop for fourteen hours every day, where they make almost enough money to feed themselves until they get sick of malnutrition and overwork, and end up dying in the street, could have had a better life if they tried harder.
|
No , I did not say that . I said that many failures were due to that . Others were due to bad judgment . I'm just saying that no man has a responsibility to anyone and anything but himself . I am not responsible for your poverty , the same way that I would not hold you responsible for mine .
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-04-2005 09:34
I sure know how to call them.
|