ephorex_77

Originally posted by: sixers33 ephorex_77, the world and Australia did alot more for the Tsunami then the Bush fires now.. And don't forget that entires towns have been totally destroyed here, more then $1.5 billion in damage. You can't blame the Herald Sun for caring about their own state by covering it..quote> I know. I live in this state. My post was mainly about my musings as to the inherent inequality of human life, not an attack on media bias. I did hope that my disclaimer was clear, but apparently not.

Just an off-topic thought: the other day, the Herald Sun (Melbourne newspaper) has been plastered with pictures and first-hand accounts of loss and death for the past few days. It's heart-wrenching, yet, I can't help but thinking that in terms of quantitative loss of life and property, it hardly registers. In circumspect, looking at, say, the 2004 Tsunami, 225,000 people died compared to our 150. 173+. The loss of property in the former disaster...billions and billions more than the latter. Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, but the people in this bushfire have lost everything - a lifetime's work - and it's reported on the front page, hence, it's more galling for us who read it. Yet for an unnamed Indonesian fisherman who likewise lost his lifetime's worth of property....he's just another anonymous number in the estimated millions of people affected by the tsunami. No picture on papers, no statement on websites, no access to government aid. Human life really isn't equal. It seems by virtue of your being born into a different set of circumstances, your life is worth more and is more newsworthy than another. Of course, as a disclaimer, I know that it's easier to get firsthand stories of out of a few hundred people as opposed to millions, and that the tyranny of distance comes into play in the game of reporting, but it still holds true to a large extent. And before I receive narky posts, I don't mean to belittle the tragedy at all; it just engendered some pensive musings in me, that's all.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus Just because you believe in individuality, there STILL is a society and if the vast majority of students became screw ups, then everyone's ability to survive is threatened.quote> I wouldn't say survival, rather function freely. I do dot deny it's existence. I deny it's superiority. There is a difference. Social contract. You are, therefore you agree. Secondly, as long as you're under 18 or whatever the limit is in the jurisdiction you're under, you probably lack the ability to agree.quote> I can understand a contract, and I can write. Therefore I can agree to it. Also, I take that as a degrading comment. You people whine a lot. The basic and sole purpose of school is to educate you. It's there to inform you and to help you prepare for future life. The phrase 'school rights' is pretty much a misnomer. Some of you would have a heart attack if school uniform was compulsory between the ages of 5 and 16 or 19 as it is here. I think possibly a word that sums up people who complain about school is spoilt. No offence intended, but darn, you have it very VERY good.quote> 1) It is school's function to educate people. Nothing less. Nothing more. 2) What would you call 'school rights' if it is a misnomer? 3) We have the right to complain and/or express our opinions. 4) How are we spoiled? 5) You misspelled spoiled as spoilt. Lastly, this thread was not created for mindless opinion bashing. Read the topic summary.quote> To be honest, the mere fact that you bring out point 5 is, in itself, straying from the thread topic that you yourself set out; it's nothing more than semantical fluff. Besides, "ed" and "lt" are both acceptable. In fact, I'd point out that you misspelt/misspelled "misspelt" as "misspelled". Well, as far as I'm concerned, you can grow all the weed you want. It's when you snuff it or sell it that is illegal. quote> Well, as far as the schools you're describing are concerned, you (students) can have all the mobile phones you want. It's when you use them or bring them to class that's breaking the school rules. And also, your viewpoint concerning marijuana is is exactly that: your (individual me me me) point of view. Society seems to have a different view of it and your predilections for growing weed are governed by the collective (hope that's not a dirty word) view of it. Basically correct. I think that the "society" should protect individual rights over "collective" rights. I don't know about you, but I would not sacrifice my freedom to serve some kind of superior collective. After all, isn't individual rights the base foundation of democracy?quote> Ah well. I hate to be the bearer of evil tidings, but unfortunately, your "freedom" is of secondary importance - so it would seem anyway, from all that you've said - compared to that of your school. You may have lofty sentiments regarding individual rights, but if you want to attend the school you do, I daresay you're going to either take it or leave it. After all, I'm sure that the principal regards his individual rights to a school free of mobile phones (or whatever) very highly indeed. Just because I am not a collectivist does not mean that I am a failure or something of that nature. You make a mistake of assuming that people who don't see themselves as a subordinate to society are abnormal. Indeed, the slaves would have never been liberated by a collective way of thinking. Their individual rights were thrown aside, but they served the "economy". If that thinking prevailed, they'd still be on the plantations harvesting tobacco as we speak. quote> I'm just introducing the other point of view, namely a society where inordinate focus is given to the individual and where individuals are afforded absurdly over-the-top "rights". If all humans were free to do as they chose, imagine where we'd be. You, personally, may not like to have teachers dictating to you what you have to do (whoops, there goes homework out the window!), but in that case, why don't the student teach the teachers? That would pander very nicely to people who feel "unequal" under the current system, wouldn't it? Their job is to teach their subject matter. Nothing more, nothing less. quote> And let's say we have a single problem child in class. Should we allow that child to distract and adversely affect other students all in the name of his rights not to be hauled off to detention (it's equivalent to gaol, after all)? How about the teacher's individual right to a job free of stress and trouble? How about the individual rights of the other students who just want to kick that problem kid out of class? Assaulting children, in my view, is not discipline. Remember my point about being equal under the law? Well, if if those Malaysians struck an adult 10 times with a cane, it would be prosecuted as assault. quote> Oh, don't worry. They do that in Malaysian and Singaporean gaols all the time and it's sanctioned by law. And the ultimate irony of it all is that caning adults is viewed as corrective discipline that is positively applied to adult lawbreakers. So please, let's not say it's "assault". In fact, people who truly assault other innocent people are subjected to caning. And just out of interest, in your opinion, would smacking a child on the bottom with your hand constitute assault? How about other posters here? EDIT: @ palpatine Exactly! There seems to be a huge problem nowadays with individuals who think that their individual rights somehow take precedence over that of the silent, (usually) suffering majority. In stooping down to include everybody and to accommodate every single person's viewpoint, you end up accommodating no one's. Some people seem to forget that responsibility is a key ingredient in decent society.

I've read through all the replies on this thread; the first one that's actually caught my attention in a while. I expected most posters here to be against most of your points, PM. Call it a stereotype, but I'd be inclined to say that the average ST'er isn't likely to be a high school drop-out or even an underachiever when it comes to school. Simcity doesn't quite lend itself to that kind of student. Not surprisingly, it seems I was right about my hunch. My opinions on this topic are of course, influenced by my own experiences as a student, and also by the media (you can't get away from them). In Melbourne, overprotective parents and lousy schools get plenty of media attention, in between coverage of earthquakes and corruption scandals. And judging by letters to the editor, it seems that many people agree that schools have to be stricter and actually educate/discipline children. *shock* I won't go through all the points that I have in mind, seeing as it's all been done before, but I'd like to introduce something new into this thread. Duke made a good point about racial quotas in the school system. From what I've gleaned over the years looking at wikipedia (admittedly, not the best of places to get info), racial quotas are something that threaten to destroy the integrity of the meritocratic school system (obviously you can tell I'm agreeing with duke). On a related note, have you noticed how different races and places have different views on education? For instance, I'm quite sure that in places like Africa and Asia, education would be considered a cherished privilege. For those that don't have access to one, education remains the ultimate goal for many parents who know that it is through education alone that the poverty cycle is broken and access to a better life is granted. Anecdotally, migrants (read: minorities new to a country) are generally more disposed to valuing education. I would also bet that minority students (fresh from another country) would be less likely to be sent to detention or be in trouble for failing to hand in homework, etc. etc. If true, this may lend credence to that old saying, you never miss the water till the well runs dry. I just wonder, PM, if you've ever considered what it would be like without education. I'm not implying that you're a failure at school. It would just be good to accommodate the perspective of someone for whom education is the only means to a better life. If those racuous students in every school were to be deprived of an education and could subsequently be led to see their possible futures without an education, I wonder if any one of them would be so keen to propose points like you have. 6. Abolish corporal punishment, and if it happens prosecute it as assault. I lived in Malaysia for five years and was educated in primary school over there. I speak from personal experience when I say that judicious applications of a rattan cane to the hand (and they weren't soft strokes either!) did me absolutely no harm. In fact, I credit canings for having instilled in me a greater work ethic. Again, this is something you hear here in Australia. Whenever reports of schoolkids out of hand are published, letters to the editor pour in, mentioning how the cane and the ruler should be brought back. Claims of "my son/my daughter/I myself was caned/rapped on the knuckles/given 10 of the best when I was young, and it did me a world of good" frequently appear. Again, perhaps the older generations were on to something with "spare the rod and spoil the child". Corporal punishment as a last resort that is done with disciplining a child in mind and is free from unbridled desperation and frustration (read: the teacher/parent can't go nuts and smash the child out of fury) is something that I see as a positive thing. Too often, we have people equating old-fashioned disciplining with child abuse. This should not be the case. Corrective punishment as a last resort that doesn't descend into mindless abuse isn't something that society should condemn. In today's world, a smack to the bottom later, and there goes Mr Jones off to gaol, his wife divorces him, their three children sent to child-care services in case further child/sexual abuse can be perpetrated and the family broken up. Personally, I see this drop in child discipline as being inversely proportional to the rise in youth problems today. Society (at least here in Melbourne, though I suspect it's the same elsewhere) bemoans the fact that the youth of today are thugs and louts, yet principals, teachers and parents punished if they attempt to rein their child in. I wonder how many of those "problem youths" could have had a different life had their nascent behaviour problems been nipped in the bud early by parents or teachers who were concerned with their increasingly bad behaviour? In my view, the school has the right to search the locker, since it is their property. But they do not have the right to search the student's property. Examples: Reading a person's journal, looking inside a purse, or reading a person's schoolwork. Illegal contents such as drugs and guns are identifiable enough without prying into a person's property. quote> Interesting. If your view prevailed, I could be growing a massive haul of weed in my house underground (not easily identifiable) safe in the knowledge that no one could touch it seeing as it's on MY property and the plants were MY property and the water and electricity were MY property? The same thinking could be applied to slaves (human property), neglected animals (animal property) and you would ostensibly end up with the same situation. Forgive me for saying so, but again, I believe that your post and the points you raised right at the start are reminiscent of a focus on ME ME ME as opposed to society in general in today's day and age. Not allowing teachers to do their job, hauling parents off to gaol for laying a finger on their child, a failure to rein in anti-social behaviour for fear of infringing on their personal rights, entertaining prisoners like gods in case they sue for "mistreatment" etc. are all examples of this malodorous issue. All these problems are symptomatic of a failure to see that I am also part of SOCIETY (pretty catchy =P), which gives rise to a whole pandora's box of other social ills. P.S. Sorry for wandering off topic. Yet, I guess the topics I raise are related to this thread. EDIT: YOU GET AN EDUCATION AND A CHANCE TO GO FAR IN LIFE, PAYED FOR BY THE STATE AS A RIGHT. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WHO DO NOT HAVE THIS CHANCE SO THINK YOURSELF LUCKY YOU DO AND STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT IT quote> Heh, going for the succint, albeit blunt approach eh?? This pretty much sums up what I had to say about gratitude.

Originally posted by: krbe Originally posted by: ephorex_77[Another rant]quote> Well, it is you who extrapolates. quote> Was just about to sleep (11:39pm here in Melbourne), when I noticed this post. Just for the record, my post was incomplete when you commented on it; I hit the post button accidentally, hence the "EDITED BY" message in my post above this. Now, I'm not too miffed about my post being called a rant, but what I am concerned about is the way in which you dismiss it. In fact, you've done nothing more than say "Well, it is you who extrapolates", which I believe is what you also said in reply to another "pro-China" poster some time back. I don't believe I've done any "extrapolating". Perhaps you can be a little more helpful and point out specific points in which I've committed this clear and obvious sin of "extrapolating", instead of replying to an entire post with just six words and two punctuation maks? Or should I "extrapolate" from your abrupt reply and conclude that you have nothing worthwhile to say in your defence?

Originally posted by: raja_indy14 jesus, there's no pleasing some people... edit - btw, just noticed this: I also find it interesting that they don't have something Chinese to be proud of, instead of the Olympic games, which are a modern, European invention with its history dating back to the ancient Geek civilisation.quote> wow. clearly the Chinese are proud of hosting the olympics because they have nothing else to be proud of. or let me guess, even though the Olympics are an international event - meant to symbolize global unity - only Europeans have any right to be proud of it because it's one of their inventions? what absolute rubbish; and the antithesis of what the olympics should be about. any nation that hosts the olympics should be rightly proud to do so, or they shouldn't be hosting them. on a similar vein, i wonder if ,when 2010 comes around, the Olympic torch relay will be marred by protests over the human rights record of Canada? almost certainly not, i imagine, the native population isn't nearly so PR savvy as the dalai lama and the tibetan government-in-exile. it's a bit of a national embarrassment, but luckily - for us - i doubt anyone will even notice.quote> Well, I highlighted that comment a page ago, and what followed was rather astonishing (though in circumspect, not really, considering the predilections of a few posters here). Instead of addressing the whole, general concept and purpose behind the poem, rather, a whole barrage of semantics is launched, attempting to discredit the author's knack for picking right pictures to go along with the stanzas. Moreover, krbe follows up his admittedly obtuse viewpoint pertaining to colonialism (such a shame that China didn't give the western invaders more of their sovereign land, isn't it?? <-- sarcasm) by attempting to justify it with the premise: "Well, westerners did it to the rest of the world, right?". Now, not only is that ignored by the "pro-west" (sorry if I'm generalising, but I think it's easier to split this into two camps for the sake of writing) posters, but racist appellations, ad hominem attacks on China's supposed inferiority as compared to the west and the blaming of China for "barely hold[ing]" onto their country (courtesy of the "we did it in India, SA, Africa, so it's your turn" colonialist mindset) are all likewise ignored by the "pro-west" camp. Instead, a few posters courteously advise me to sit down and have some water, compare my comments to that of a juvenile's complaints and then follow it up with an extremely learned dissertation on the virtues of various beverages; exciting stuff, undoubtedly, but rather condescending all the same. I had hoped for the sheer impudence of krbe's comments to be appreciated by others immediately following his posting of them, but I'm glad all the same to see that I'm not the only one feeling slighted by them. Those comments really were unworthy of posting. To sneer at China ridiculing it for having never invented the Olympics is the absolute height of ignorance and foolishness, only topped by his lament decrying China's apparently inequitable distribution of territories between the western invaders and domestic Chinese warlords. Add to that racist comments (whose gravity, admittedly, may not have been appreciated at the time), and one gets the impression that those posts were not thought through properly, at best. Really, those comments simply scream to be answered by nothing less than scathing posts and I believe that my response was very measured, considering the insensitivity and patent foolishness it constituted. No need for patronising and anacoluthic comments as to t

@ krbe: Sorry, but there were some parts of your post that are, frankly, incomprehensible to me; I'll try and reply to the bits that I actually understood. You ridicule people for being willing to die for their freedom; why would you rather die for a metal thing with a gas canister below? Because it is more "tangible" and "objective"? quote> You're missing the point. You snidely attempted to point out the abject foolishness of dying for a torch, even though the torch runner was hardly "dying". I mentioned your comment because I thought it extremely hypocritical that you could ridicule someone for protecting (though hardly to the extent of "dying") a torch, yet fail to realise that there are plenty of others (even on this very website) who ARE willing to die for an intangible, fluid ideal. You're being inconsistent. And your protest that your national flag gets burned with little fuss is hardly valid in the context. YES, I'm sure there are plenty of Danes who would be more interested in the bowel movements of bovines than their national flag, but there are others in the world who wouldn't hold so indifferent a view towards their own national flag. I fail to see how you can argue against that. I also find it hard to believe that any reasonable American would rather die protecting the Stars and Stripes from being burned than die protecting his homeland. quote> Well, I'm sure it's quite within the bounds of reality for me to say that there are plenty. I also find it interesting that they don't have something Chinese to be proud of, instead of the Olympic games, which are a modern, European invention with its history dating back to the ancient Geek civilisation. quote> This ad hominem attack on China made by you perhaps show that you're at the end of your tether; it doesn't seem that this comment is in aid of anything. In fact, it's possible that this comment by you merely reinforces my general hatred of eurocentrism. Look at all the arrogance and contemptible pride in that one, single sentence of yours. In fact, just reading it, I'm not sure if the rest of your post deserves to be dignified with a response. Frankly, your comments only serve to expose the baseness and narrow-minded nature of your views . They must obviously have forgotten their past, a hundred years ago they could barely hold on to what was left of them. quote> Oh boy, more western superiority. And I wonder WHY it was that the Chinese could barely hold on to their country. Maybe it was due to the British (et al) bombing China for not buying enough of their dope?? This comment of yours really hits rock-bottom. It does your intellect no credit by saying such rubbish. This may well be a western viewpoint, but getting your country up and running are prioritised way before getting the Olytmpics, which you are awarded, not something you deserve. quote> Damn right it is a western viewpoint. Compared to what China was just over 50 years ago, in the aftermath of decades of civil war and the debilitating effects of the Great Leap Forward (greatest misnomer) and the Cultural Revolution, China IS up and running. And this is MY viewpoint, but I'd leave it up to the IOC to decide who gets to host the Olympics, not you. But what is The China Threat? Does it portray all Chinese as gooks

Originally posted by: krbe Also, an article "detailing" the views of the common Chinese (which unfortunatly are largely missing from everyday debate here) shows that they have been very effective in making Jin Jing into a hero, because she "saved" the torch from the "vicious" demonstrants in Paris—granted, they did try to rip it from a girl in a wheelchair, but dieing for an torch must be even more ridiculous than dieing for freedom (Golden Girl Lifts a Nation, China Daily 14th April).quote> Admittedly, this was posted a long time ago, but I find it has relevance for my comment. I was just thinking of the rank hypocrisy evident in that comment by krbe. The US sets great store by "freedom", which is in essense, something intangible and subjective. But if you like, I wonder how people would react if I burned an American flag (oh, and spat and urinated on it for good measure beforehand) in front of the Lincoln Memorial (or any other place of national/political significance)? And as to the charge that it's ridiculous to be "dieing for a torch", I wonder how the Roman legionnaires felt when they fell to protect the Eagle? I wonder how many people have venerated icons and safeguarded flags with their lives. Your comment just exposes how there seems to be one standard by which China (and ostensibly Chinese) are judged, and one for others. Which leads to my next comment: ___________________________________________________________________________________ When We were called Sick man of Asia, We were called The Yellow Peril. When We are billed to be the next Superpower, We are called The China Threat. When We our doors were Closed, You smuggled Opium to Open Markets. When We Embrace Freed Trade, You blame us for Taking Away Your Jobs. When We were falling apart, You marched in your troops and wanted your "fair share". And You killed, burned, maimed and looted, We were broken into pieces. Just go to the British Museum and The Louvre, which of those Arts and Relics were bought fair? ( Even Woodrow Wilson Couldn't give back Birth Place of Confucius back to Us, But But, He did buy a ticket for the Famine Relief Ball for us... -A trickle of good will in a sea of despair. ) Never again, we said, We stood up and fought for our survival. And piece by piece we put our nation together again, , "Free Tibet" you screamed, "it was an invasion!" Never mind, that those who shouted did the original invasion. When We Tried Communism, You hated us for being Communists When We embrace Capitalism, You hate us for being Capitalists. When We have a Billion People, you said we were destroying the planet. When We are tried limited our numbers, you said It was human rights abuse. When We were Poor, You treat us like dogs. When We Loan you cash, You blamed us for your debts. When We build our industries, You called us Polluters. When we made you consumer goods, You blamed us for global warming. When We buy oil, You called that exploitation and Genocide. When You fight for oil, You called that Liberation. When We were lost in Chaos and Rampage, You wanted Rules of Law for us. When We uphold law and order against Violence, You called that Violating Human Rights. When We were silent, You said you want us to have Human Rights and Free Speech. When We were silent no more, You say we were Brainwashed-Xe

No one was actually saying that China did not make important discoveries. Callbat and I were simply making a reply to the view that the United Kingdom has done nothing good. No one is disregarding Chinese culture and history. We are looking at the current situation in China and seeing as no one was making reference to Chinese invention it was not mentioned. No need to get your back up about it. quote> Haha, I must say I wasn't exactly in histrionics about your comment; "mildly bemused" would perhaps be closer to the mark. I'm used to seeing the world (as well as see the world see the world ) from a Eurocentric point of view. Heck, I'm guilty of perpetrating it sometimes. But really, there's no need for you to feel so affronted about my comment (if you weren't, then disregard it). It was patriot who brought it up in the first place, I believe. As for the Big Bad European Empires.... cry me a river. Get over it, nothing in history can be changed unless you have discovered a time machine everyone is unaware of. Myself and others have already addressed that nothing was perfect and indeed the British empire was one of the better ones that existed.quote> Ahh, a comment unworthy of you, I think. If one goes by the same token, let's just shut this thread down and affix a large post at both the start and end of this thread saying "AS FOR BIG BAD CHINA IN TIBET...CRY ME A RIVER". Indeed, it's rather tempting; it'd certainly solve this débâcle wouldn't it? A sophistic point, but would it be sporting to declare to all you "cry-me-a-river-ers", "GET OVER IT"? After all, nothing can be changed unless you have discovered (insert method here) that everyone is unaware of to get China to clean up its act in Tibet permanently. And seeing as you've conveniently confessed that "nothing is/was perfect", can one likewise retort "China isn't perfect either"? Can we also say that China, at present, is one of the better of the developing countries, especially considering its long status as a pariah Communist country, a country with a huge, burgeoning population, a country ravaged by decades of war etc.? Can't we see this issue from the point of view that you've so presciently pointed out? And just for the record, I have no blinded anti-British predilections. I admire many aspects of British culture and I certainly strive to emulate a great many things that they do (the old-fashioned ones, at least). What I certainly do not admire - and I'm sure you're so inclined as well - is their historical foreign policy. And yes, I believe that the British Empire, at least from a non-Indian point of view, was certainly one of the better ones out there. EDIT: And also, come to think about it, the issue of history is arguably relevant to this discussion. It certainly is pertinent to discuss the "past evils" seeing as the past undeniably has great bearing on the present, same as the way that bringing up Tibet's far-from-tranquil state under the Dalai Lamas' reigns is rather important to this discussion. Finally, just a random thought: If China hadn't been invaded by foreign powers, would it a stretch of the imagination to imagine that the seed of Communism would have fallen on barren land? That is to say, Communism was used by Mao as a panacea to the evils besetting China; if China had been stable (which they were, before outside "intervention"), would Mao's revolution have converted 1.3 billion people to its cause and thus earned it the ire of most of the West for a greater part of half a century (and some posters on a website)? Interesting question, I thi

If China does not like western intervention, why don't we just take away the internet, TV, skyscrapers, cars, etc., and let them live like they did before we came along? Can we get a poll from the Chinese population to see how many would be in favor of that? quote> Well if you don't like us British we'll be more than happy to take away your internet and your railways and everything else we invented. quote> Nice one Callbat. Lets also not forgot the telephone, jet engine and we pioneered the technique of cloning and lead the world in genetic research. So lets see......no internet, no jet engines (thus no planes), no telephones, no railways....hhhmmmm interesting world that would that would be living in. quote> Haha, amazing crowd, this. Mutual support at its finest, eh?? I did say that I wouldn't be replying in this thread any more, but the laughable posts about taking away Western inventions from China are just begging for a reply. I wonder how the West would have fared without Paper, Printing, Gunpowder and the Compass, all four of them inventions of the Chinese. Indeed, all four of the above, if one thinks about it, have been pivotal in the development of the previously (comparatively) undeveloped Western world. Paper and printing: the dissemination of knowledge so crucial to the Renaissance; gunpowder: weapons used to colonise (read: commit gross abuses of human rights); the compass: used for navigation to those colonised (read: places where gross abuses of human rights were committed). And of course, that's not even considering the hundreds of other decidedly instrumental inventions the Chinese invented over the thousands of years during which the West were busy hacking off the local lords' or kings' heads just next door. And let's not forget that without those four inventions above, it's highly unlikely that the west would have advanced so far technologically so quickly. Perhaps the inventions the west have created (which are admittedly, crucial to modern life) would have been pushed back a few hundred years? As ski said, this line of argument is pathetically facile. @ patriots: As for hypocrisy, yes, it certainly is hypocritical when other countries (of which I believe the US is one) condemn China for its pollution while its own pollution problems are far from being fixed. Perhaps you as an individual are not being hypocritical, but the US government and other countries' governments certainly are. The same situation applies to criticism of human rights. While you personally may never have filled an innocent person full of bullets, the same can't be said of governments who have sanctioned such actions. The point about hypocrisy still stands.

Well, I'll take the plunge and just engage in a good 'ol pointless discussion: Originally posted by: krbe About factories being closed: They're already on their way. Not necessarily because they pollute; but because they're bad for the Chinese image. The Economist's special report on China told the tale of a factory city which is soon to close because it isn't that good to have chimneys spewing out pollution close to the foreign visitors ahead of the Olympics. quote> 1) You're behind the times; this has already happened and was announced many months (I think even years) ago. 2) This is another example of facts that add nothing to the discussion. In fact, I'm not even sure (apart from your obvious anti-China predilection conveyed) of the point you're trying to make in that. You said: On euphemisms: You may want to be cautious, but euphemisms only conceals the meaning. Take "enchanced interrogation" as an example: Today few would contest that this actually means torture when we're talking about the Gestapo; the CIA however claims that "enchanced interrogation" means something else. However, in itself "enchaned interrogation" is useless: Interrogation has a meaning, but how do you "enchance" it? Why not just call it by it's right name, unless you want to hide something? quote> The moderator said: About the military / sex toy argument: This is still about the harm you choose to inflict upon yourself v. the harm others inflict upon you. If your parents considered a dildo harmful, it wasn't because it was; it was because they chose to percieve it as harmful. [Marc- Though it was a mere example, let's not discuss sexual toys, please.] quote> Should I consider myself exonerated of this deplorable crime of excessive-euphemism use? You can stop being so suspicious; I'm not hiding anything. If I thought it prudent, I'd have mentioned everything explicitly, but seeing as I've fortunately been endowed with an elementary understanding of how this site works, I didn't. As evidenced by Marc's comment, wasn't really that bad a choice. And once more, apart from attempting to portray me as someone with an ulterior motive by using euphemisms, your point criticising my use of euphemism adds what, exactly, to this discussion? It's almost as useless as my pointing out that the right word is "enHANCED" and not "enCHANCED", as you've used four times above. About "impact": Again, this is the damage you choose to inflict upon yourself. I can choose to be "impacted" by the terrorist by letting fear tell me to use the bike that extra mile instead of the metro, but that I would choose, and not the terrorist. And I won't be impacted by anyone that are jews, gays or robbers until they do something. quote> Well, others would be horrified by jews; others would be horrified by gay people; others would be horrified by; animal-loving deviants; others would be horrified by muslims; others

Well, seeing as I've some time to kill, and reading those replies just fired up something in me...here goes: (I'll try to address the more salient points...as well as the more patently ridiculous) @ VT: Again, it's kind of hard to look back on that and feel all warm and fuzzy about the Chinese government when it's been evidenced that they'll kill you if you speak against them. That, and there's the whole deal about a few good acts not covering up the stain of a serious black mark on their record. All they've really done is changed one aggressor for another. quote> All right. Now, let's work backwards, shall we? It might prove a little more elucidating were I to show things step-by-step (I find it sometimes helps people visualise the whole point of my comments). 1) I said: And even if you really would die than be under a regime that oppressed you, does that mean other people in China should follow suit?? quote> 2) To which you replied: No, they can do what they want. But lets see. I seem to remember this little thing happened called Tiananmen Square. If memory serves me correctly (and it does) there were people there protesting the Chinese government and calling for more freedom. What was the Chinese government's response? They killed them. It's kind of hard to consider that and arrive at the conclusion that they aren't oppressive. quote> 3) To which I replied: Of course, and when I meant "Chinese people", I had just the students in Tiananmen in mind? I was thinking more of the countless others, heck, the entire country which should be grateful for the Communists for liberating (nice patriotic term, eh?) them from foreign aggressors, if nothing else. quote> 4) To which you replied: Again, it's kind of hard to look back on that and feel all warm and fuzzy about the Chinese government when it's been evidenced that they'll kill you if you speak against them. That, and there's the whole deal about a few good acts not covering up the stain of a serious black mark on their record. All they've really done is changed one aggressor for another. quote> Now, apologies for the gentle reader who got bored reading what I just copied and pasted above - I promise there's a point to this. Now, VT, kindly note that I made my first comment 1) in reply to besfasinguy's comment that he would rather die than be under an oppressive regime. I hope that's quite clear. The point of comment 1) was this: "Even if someone (belfastinguy) IS willing to die for freedom (in conflict or otherwise; it doesn't really enter into this equation), why should anyone else in China do likewise?" Your response 2) to that, which, in retrospect, doesn't seem very coherent given the point I was trying to make in 1), was that "China = oppressive". YES they certainly are, by western standards, yet you haven't made a single iota of a rebuttal when it comes to my point, namely, that Chinese people aren't all like belfastinguy. As I also mentioned, at that point, I didn't notice how irrelevant your reply 2) to my comment 1) was, so I replied with 3), which admittedly, didn't quite address the point. And then you replied with 4) which brought up China's bad points all over again. Now, I hope that you can divine what I'm about to say. If not, read on --> "This is a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT". It's useless trying to points like 1) with how arguments that merely outline how bad China is, a topic which composes the bulk of your replies 2) and 4).

I'll try and make this post as short as I can, because frankly, this argument is getting...well, I'll leave it hanging. You know very well how silly this sounds, don't you? When the Americans were crying "give me liberty or give me death", what did they refer to, do you believe? Mass suicide in front of the red jackets to prove your point? Let's be honest, not idiots. quote> I'd have thought that the sheer exaggeration of that comment was enough to make people disregard the example I brought up, and focus on the principle (not everyone shares one person's viewpoints), but obviously not. I suppose some people take everything at face value. SOunds good, doesn't it? Well, what do they deciede, do you believe? Decisions benefitting themselves or you? quote> You're taking my point in isolation without viewing it in the context of my comment. I compared India to China. India vacillates; China doesn't. Whether or not those decision benefit the Chinese Commie Party or not is a moot point. The end result is that India is mired in poverty (to a much larger extent than China, so please, no one point out that China is poor too...if you're going on about that, the USA isn't exactly free from poverty) and China is comparatively better. If some of the decisions that China makes don't make you happy, but rather, make their population in general better off, I believe that that decision should be made, regardless of whether some Commie official skims off something for himself, which isn't something Americans (or westerners) are innocent of anyway. Both the Liberals and the Unity List, which are the most extreme socialist movement represented in Parliament here, are entitled to the same support and protection. quote> Didn't you know that Tibetans (and all the other 55 or so recognised ethnic minorities in China) are also afforded the "same support and protection"?? Sorry to burst your bubble, but ideals and realities have traditionally filed for divorce so many times, it's a running joke. And I don't see how these are to be counted togheter with jews and gays—are robbers and jews or terrorists and gays having the same impact upon others, or am I missing a point here? quote> From someone's perspective, gays and jews an terrorists are having the same impact on their lives, say, by being morally corrupt?? It's all relative. GWB once said that a dictatorship would be preferable when it comes to decisionmaking; do you think the American people at large regret that noneone can hold that position for more than eight consecutive years? quote> -sigh- and likewise do you think that the Chinese people at large want a system which forces 1.3 billion of them (many of whom are already so time-starved, toiling for their next meal) to vote for their next leader (who'll probably be powerless in the face of scores of political opposition parties anyway) every few years?? Just because you like your current system of government doesn't mean it works in every other country. It's relative. You meant that you haven't heard about the many Americans, including politicians from both camps, lawyers, judges, etc. that are opposing the actions that (might) go on there? quote> Hey, I was just responding to a comment that China had dark and scary rooms to torture people in, something which America certainly has as well. And as for your facile point, you mean that YOU haven't heard about the many people, including politicians from both cam

I'm really loathe to reply tonight, seeing as the last time I did it, I wasted many hours and in the end, I accidentally deleted my 4 page long (size 7 font) post from ST..but here goes: Originally posted by: belfastuniguy I'd rather die thanks...becuase you can't really call that a life. quote> Uh huh...should we call your bluff and expect to see your name up there on the "Voluntary Suicides Protesting our Loss of Freedom" list of honour if Commie troops come traipsing into your country?? It's easy making such grand (and dare I say, pretentious) statements as that (unduly influenced by Hollywood, no doubt?), but I'm quite sure you'll be singing a different tune when you stare down the barrel of a Communist's loaded gun rather than posting such sentiments from the comfort of your home. And even if you really would die than be under a regime that oppressed you, does that mean other people in China should follow suit?? Let's be realistic. Also something I should add, that were it not for these 'western rules' and freedoms most likely you would not have the freedom to express your personal views. I find it interesting that you defend a country in which, were you to be living there, you would never be allowed to openly speak your mind. If you did you would now be in prison and most likely being tortured. Its all very well defending China from the comfort of a Canadian suburb....would you be so forgiving if you lived there?quote> I think that was the comment that earned you rapturous applause from s_olah and harlem123 (good patriotic Americans brought up on a diet of "Liberty or Death" no doubt??). A small point, but as raja_indy is supporting China, he'd very likely be praised a a model citizen in China. Heck, he might even get to become a Red Pioneer leader! Buut let's consider the bigger issue. In keeping with what you've proposed to raja_indy, suppose we have you living in India. There're a few posts talking about how successful India is as a democracy (I'll address that later), so I'm guessing that life in (democratic) India is good. Imagine you're living in the slums of Mumbai. No electricity, no stability (the government could come down hard on your head at any time...or your rickety shanty, literally), no sewerage system, no running water (well, the sewerage system and water supply more or less overlap). It's a miserable livelihood altogether. Now, from reports I've read over the years, one of the major impediments to real growth and improvement in people's lives is the fact that the much-vaunted bureacracy (read: "democracy") is stymieing growth. Endless debates, committees, arguments, factional disputes, behind-the-stage machinations and sabotaging all waste time. A humourous example: it took courts in the India two whole years to decide whether to use red ink or green ink on official documents. Now, if that's a sign of "democracy", it's no wonder that the majority of Indians are still mired in poverty to an extent that makes China's seem like Paradise. In China, by contrast, generally if the Government decides on something, it's done. Simple as that. "Oh no!!" cries Lady Liberty, "how about democracy? How about the endless debates and committees and proposals and studies and governmental inquiries and those oceans of red tape?" Well, if one waited for China's 1.3 billion people to come to a consensus on anything, our grandkids would all be dead before that happened. In such a large country as China, there's no way that every single viewpoint can be accommodated. In India, a country with less people that China, their literacy rates are far lower than China's, their poverty levels are far higher,<

Originally posted by: raja_indy14 although i sympathize with the tibetans and the chinese that are oppressed, i don't think it can be said that the chinese government has no concern for the chinese people - else why industrialize, why not just sit in their palaces whilst the people starve, a la kim jong? the plight of the tibetans can also be seen, i think, as a natural tendency for massive population pressures to spawn migrations and - often - the subjugation of neighbouring peoples. for instance european populations expanded massively into the americas during their period of industrialization and population growth; while canada and the US both brutally oppressed native populations in their conquest of the western frontier - these crimes have still not been properly addressed by either country. it is regrettable, but can westerners really criticize a country for doing precisely what they did in similar circumstances (settling other regions), is it suddenly taboo because it is no longer a western imperative? from where do they derive their moral authority? secondly, the communist government is harsh. it is a party that ruthlessly and jealously guards it's single-party status, and it is constantly paranoid of any threat to it's authority - political, religious or otherwise (and they may have a right to be, the religious Tai-Ping rebellion in the mid-19th century killed 20 million - when instability rocks china millions die). however it has also guided china through a period of unrivalled economic growth, millions are being lifted out of poverty; you may say that so many more remain poor, but development has never been an instantaneous process, and millions of chinese are seeing real benefits to their standard of living - to say otherwise would be naive. some suggest that the very control and stability of the communist government has greatly benefited china, i'm not so sure, but i know my own government is hugely inefficient and apparently ineffective and doing anything more than a basic day to day running of the country. the policies may be harsh, but how does one run a single-party state of 1.4 billion people, 120 million internal migrants, an economy growing at 10% per annum, with arable land and the environment rapidly deteriorating? what country HAS experienced rapid industrial development with a truly free society? many european countries began their industrializations under monarchs or dictators, the US may have been 'free' but for a long period of it's early growth there were millions of people enslaved, while suffrage was far from universal. is it even possible for a major state to make it through the rapid early stages of industrialization - and all the difficulties it creates - with a completely free society? eventually, with increasing wealth, the growth of a middle class, and education these forms of government are superceded by more democratic and freer societies, which is something that i think must happen to china - the floodgates of capitalism have been opened and the old order will eventually be replaced; whether the communist party fades peacefully away or in a spasm of violence is what we should worry about. on the environment and work environment/wages i can only say that this is a country in the early throes of rapid industrialization, can we realistically expect that people will be earning US$5/hour off the bat? or that expensive, environment saving technologies will be implemented at the outset? look at 19th century London, the killer fogs and the appalling working conditions - it seems a natural stage of development. the chinese gov'ts&n