|
On January 03 2010 12:57 haduken wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 12:31 baubo wrote:On January 03 2010 10:31 KwarK wrote:
The absence of a revolution does not indicate the consent of the population. Indeed it is often the opposite. The Irish were most subdued after the great famine and yet that still scars Irish cultural memory. It wasn't until many years of prosperity and recovery that they attempted an uprising. Revolutions are for populations with sufficient spare time and resources to devote to these things. I agree. However, what StorkHwaiting says about China is true(his reasoning might be stretching it a bit). Chinese people generally like the government. And unlike what most westerners think, it is NOT a dictatorship. It's a one party system, and there's dissents within the party. You don't deliver, and someone will replace you. And IIRC the leadership changes every 3-6 years - max of two 3 year terms. There really is no need to go through revolutions to make changes. As someone living in China right now, I can honestly say that the Chinese people I talk to think drugs are the devil. The level of disgust is ridiculous, especially due to the opium history. So suffice to say nobody will ever be against someone getting the bullet for trafficking 4 kilos of heroin. The fact that the guy's British only makes their protest more laughable in the eyes of Chinese. I don't think Chinese people like their government but they don't hate their government any more or less than people in other countries. The social consensus has always being to deliver wealth and upgrading living standards. This much is agreed by pretty much everyone in China and to be honest with you, in this the Chinese state hasn't done too badly. There will always be unhappy people but I will ask: Outside the small group of academics, how many of them are actually complaining over freedom of speech ? The real social issue is wealth disparity. That's why it's ridiculous for anyone living in mainland China to take a Westerner's suggestion of democracy seriously. Like baubo said before, Chinese government is not a dictatorship, the chance for any leader to claim that role is buried after Mao and his grand mistakes. The Chinese state do have recourse for self-correction, even if slowly. Their party members come from all walks of life, it's very rare for the spouse of previous leadership to 'inherit' powers.
In the United States people don't care much for politicians and government officials. We keep them in check as much as possible. When it comes down to the ideals of freedom(power to the people) everyone I've ever met is very for and not against. Now, in your country you may not despise the politicians themselves any more or less but once you are exposed to living a free life its very difficult to go back. I know which is superior. If someone told me what religion to be, or what to think, etc. that would be a big problem. In China, I would feel powerless though. So it may not be a good idea to get on the governments "bad list" by speaking out, correct? So that may factor in to why everyone is clapping.
|
On January 03 2010 13:09 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 12:57 haduken wrote:On January 03 2010 12:31 baubo wrote:On January 03 2010 10:31 KwarK wrote:
The absence of a revolution does not indicate the consent of the population. Indeed it is often the opposite. The Irish were most subdued after the great famine and yet that still scars Irish cultural memory. It wasn't until many years of prosperity and recovery that they attempted an uprising. Revolutions are for populations with sufficient spare time and resources to devote to these things. I agree. However, what StorkHwaiting says about China is true(his reasoning might be stretching it a bit). Chinese people generally like the government. And unlike what most westerners think, it is NOT a dictatorship. It's a one party system, and there's dissents within the party. You don't deliver, and someone will replace you. And IIRC the leadership changes every 3-6 years - max of two 3 year terms. There really is no need to go through revolutions to make changes. As someone living in China right now, I can honestly say that the Chinese people I talk to think drugs are the devil. The level of disgust is ridiculous, especially due to the opium history. So suffice to say nobody will ever be against someone getting the bullet for trafficking 4 kilos of heroin. The fact that the guy's British only makes their protest more laughable in the eyes of Chinese. I don't think Chinese people like their government but they don't hate their government any more or less than people in other countries. The social consensus has always being to deliver wealth and upgrading living standards. This much is agreed by pretty much everyone in China and to be honest with you, in this the Chinese state hasn't done too badly. There will always be unhappy people but I will ask: Outside the small group of academics, how many of them are actually complaining over freedom of speech ? The real social issue is wealth disparity. That's why it's ridiculous for anyone living in mainland China to take a Westerner's suggestion of democracy seriously. Like baubo said before, Chinese government is not a dictatorship, the chance for any leader to claim that role is buried after Mao and his grand mistakes. The Chinese state do have recourse for self-correction, even if slowly. Their party members come from all walks of life, it's very rare for the spouse of previous leadership to 'inherit' powers. In the United States people don't care much for politicians and government officials. We keep them in check as much as possible. When it comes down to the ideals of freedom(power to the people) basically everyone is for not against. Now, in your country you may not despise the politicians themselves any more or less but once you are exposed to living a free life its very difficult to go back. So I think I know which is superior. (I mean if someone told me what religion to be, or what to think, etc. that would be a big problem.)
K time for you to go away now. You fail on several fronts.
#1. You don't know much about the US gov't according to what you just said.
#2. You know absolutely nothing about China except what is fed to you by media. (I'm saying this based on what you've shared so far. I could be wrong.)
#3. You just claimed your way of life is superior. That's a dick move.
|
On January 03 2010 13:14 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 13:09 7Strife wrote:On January 03 2010 12:57 haduken wrote:On January 03 2010 12:31 baubo wrote:On January 03 2010 10:31 KwarK wrote:
The absence of a revolution does not indicate the consent of the population. Indeed it is often the opposite. The Irish were most subdued after the great famine and yet that still scars Irish cultural memory. It wasn't until many years of prosperity and recovery that they attempted an uprising. Revolutions are for populations with sufficient spare time and resources to devote to these things. I agree. However, what StorkHwaiting says about China is true(his reasoning might be stretching it a bit). Chinese people generally like the government. And unlike what most westerners think, it is NOT a dictatorship. It's a one party system, and there's dissents within the party. You don't deliver, and someone will replace you. And IIRC the leadership changes every 3-6 years - max of two 3 year terms. There really is no need to go through revolutions to make changes. As someone living in China right now, I can honestly say that the Chinese people I talk to think drugs are the devil. The level of disgust is ridiculous, especially due to the opium history. So suffice to say nobody will ever be against someone getting the bullet for trafficking 4 kilos of heroin. The fact that the guy's British only makes their protest more laughable in the eyes of Chinese. I don't think Chinese people like their government but they don't hate their government any more or less than people in other countries. The social consensus has always being to deliver wealth and upgrading living standards. This much is agreed by pretty much everyone in China and to be honest with you, in this the Chinese state hasn't done too badly. There will always be unhappy people but I will ask: Outside the small group of academics, how many of them are actually complaining over freedom of speech ? The real social issue is wealth disparity. That's why it's ridiculous for anyone living in mainland China to take a Westerner's suggestion of democracy seriously. Like baubo said before, Chinese government is not a dictatorship, the chance for any leader to claim that role is buried after Mao and his grand mistakes. The Chinese state do have recourse for self-correction, even if slowly. Their party members come from all walks of life, it's very rare for the spouse of previous leadership to 'inherit' powers. In the United States people don't care much for politicians and government officials. We keep them in check as much as possible. When it comes down to the ideals of freedom(power to the people) basically everyone is for not against. Now, in your country you may not despise the politicians themselves any more or less but once you are exposed to living a free life its very difficult to go back. So I think I know which is superior. (I mean if someone told me what religion to be, or what to think, etc. that would be a big problem.) K time for you to go away now. You fail on several fronts. #1. You don't know much about the US gov't according to what you just said. #2. You know absolutely nothing about China except what is fed to you by media. (I'm saying this based on what you've shared so far. I could be wrong.) #3. You just claimed your way of life is superior. That's a dick move.
Yes, and I will say it again, having freedom is better than not having freedom. That is so crazy to you isn't it?
|
Depends. I'd personally rather live in a truly successfully marxist state than in the USA.
Just no Marxist state yet. :o
|
Come back when you are broke, late on your rent, got no food to feed your kids.
Then maybe you can talk about freedom in this context.
|
On January 03 2010 13:18 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Depends. I'd personally rather live in a truly successfully marxist state than in the USA.
Just no Marxist state yet. :o
LOL
Yeah, the difference is if everyone is free - then people like you have the freedom to choose to be told how to think, act, and speak however you wish (even if you want to waive that right and blindly follow allegiance to whoever you wish.) However, everyone else has their freedom too. So everyone wins! It's such a crazy concept really.
|
On January 03 2010 13:23 haduken wrote:
Come back when you are broke, late on your rent, got no food to feed your kids.
Then maybe you can talk about freedom in this context.
I knew this extreme was going to come up. Now, however much you want to you will never be able to have everything you want. No one can bend the rules of physics so you are free to magically fly or have someone who pays all your bills. Does that mean you shouldn't be able to say or think as you wish also?
My philosophy on ethics comes down to a concept of property. Laws should equally support every persons ability to protect their property. Our property includes our possessions, our bodies, and to a more limited extent our minds(harassment). Laws protect others from damaging(including stealing) said property. Freedom comes down to being able to do what you wish as long as you do not damage others' property.
No where in my philosophy are people required to give you money or bend physics.
|
To TwoToneTerran:
You have persuaded me, at least in the case of the US judicial system, that it is better to give people life imprisonment. I say this because in the economic sense, it is cheaper to house them for life than it is to pay all the legal costs of the process of hearing out appeals, etc etc. The death penalty is a very expensive legal process in the USA. And you're right, as long as we keep them permanently imprisoned, then society ends up with the same effect. So, don't feel your efforts have been wasted. I believe you have made me change my mind.
And yeah, I'm familiar with the DNA cases. My brother was working on several of those cases through the New York legal department as part of his yearly pro-bono work. Some messed up stuff going on there. A good example to bring up.
I think you do have a compelling argument in saying that we could just as easily imprison someone. I don't know enough about China's conditions to say whether it's as cheap for them to do the same. You are right in saying that life imprisonment allows more options than the death penalty and is a better solution for ALL eventualities.
So yeah, basically I am capitulating  . You've convinced me. Your arguments are logical and I can't find fault with them. Maybe someone smarter than me and is for capital punishment can prove you wrong haha. I do think you have a good point about it mostly being an angry backlash from the populace though.
Still, while I think the death penalty can be done away with, I think in an overall sense, China was well within their rights to execute this man. Is it the "best" way? No. But it's understandable.
|
On January 03 2010 13:33 StorkHwaiting wrote:
To TwoToneTerran:
You have persuaded me,
FUCK YES
EAT THAT INTERNET I CONVINCED SOMEONE TO CHANGE THEIR OPINION FUCK YOU YOU DAMN ELECTRICAL INFORMATION INTERFACE BITCH
at least in the case of the US judicial system, that it is better to give people life imprisonment.
--er, well STILL COUNTS AS A WIN.
I say this because in the economic sense, it is cheaper to house them for life than it is to pay all the legal costs of the process of hearing out appeals, etc etc. The death penalty is a very expensive legal process in the USA. And you're right, as long as we keep them permanently imprisoned, then society ends up with the same effect. So, don't feel your efforts have been wasted. I believe you have made me change my mind. And yeah, I'm familiar with the DNA cases. My brother was working on several of those cases through the New York legal department as part of his yearly pro-bono work. Some messed up stuff going on there. A good example to bring up. I think you do have a compelling argument in saying that we could just as easily imprison someone. I don't know enough about China's conditions to say whether it's as cheap for them to do the same. You are right in saying that life imprisonment allows more options than the death penalty and is a better solution for ALL eventualities. So yeah, basically I am capitulating . You've convinced me. Your arguments are logical and I can't find fault with them. Maybe someone smarter than me and is for capital punishment can prove you wrong haha. I do think you have a good point about it mostly being an angry backlash from the populace though. Still, while I think the death penalty can be done away with, I think in an overall sense, China was well within their rights to execute this man. Is it the "best" way? No. But it's understandable.
Haha it's cool man. I'm a psychology major so I literally spend all day around all the philosophical types conversing about his kind of junk. This argument has been very well practiced!
Though, I was never arguing that China wasn't within their rights to punish him as their law system sees fit. I absolutely disagree with them but it definitely isn't my place to mouth off at an entire country as if I completely know their situation.
|
On January 03 2010 13:28 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 13:23 haduken wrote:
Come back when you are broke, late on your rent, got no food to feed your kids.
Then maybe you can talk about freedom in this context. I knew this extreme was going to come up. Now, however much you want to you will never be able to have everything you want. No one can bend the rules of physics so you are free to magically fly or have someone who pays all your bills. Does that mean you shouldn't be able to say or think as you wish also?
Dude, please shutup. Not every country in the world is America, where they got to genocidally wipe out all the native inhabitants, fill the entire thing with immigrants from England, and then gradually filter in a few bits and pieces of other ethnicities and carefully control where they settled, then inundate them with consumerist culture until they lost nearly all previous sense of national or cultural identity.
On top of that, isolate them geographically and strategically by having a country bordered by two oceans, peace-loving syrup farmers, and morally bankrupt drug barons that nobody in their right mind would ever ally with.
Not every nation has these demographics. That's why not every nation can afford to give their citizens unbridled access to tons of information and entertainment. It takes at least a century of deep brainwashing through the public education system and then six decades of rampant consumerism for the citizenry to be complacent and stupid enough to have the liberty of free speech. Because they're so addled and patriotic at that point, the only speech they'll voice is about dumb things like creationism, generic pharmaceuticals, and whether the 16 yr old down the street should be able to abort.
|
On January 03 2010 13:16 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 13:14 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 03 2010 13:09 7Strife wrote:On January 03 2010 12:57 haduken wrote:On January 03 2010 12:31 baubo wrote:On January 03 2010 10:31 KwarK wrote:
The absence of a revolution does not indicate the consent of the population. Indeed it is often the opposite. The Irish were most subdued after the great famine and yet that still scars Irish cultural memory. It wasn't until many years of prosperity and recovery that they attempted an uprising. Revolutions are for populations with sufficient spare time and resources to devote to these things. I agree. However, what StorkHwaiting says about China is true(his reasoning might be stretching it a bit). Chinese people generally like the government. And unlike what most westerners think, it is NOT a dictatorship. It's a one party system, and there's dissents within the party. You don't deliver, and someone will replace you. And IIRC the leadership changes every 3-6 years - max of two 3 year terms. There really is no need to go through revolutions to make changes. As someone living in China right now, I can honestly say that the Chinese people I talk to think drugs are the devil. The level of disgust is ridiculous, especially due to the opium history. So suffice to say nobody will ever be against someone getting the bullet for trafficking 4 kilos of heroin. The fact that the guy's British only makes their protest more laughable in the eyes of Chinese. I don't think Chinese people like their government but they don't hate their government any more or less than people in other countries. The social consensus has always being to deliver wealth and upgrading living standards. This much is agreed by pretty much everyone in China and to be honest with you, in this the Chinese state hasn't done too badly. There will always be unhappy people but I will ask: Outside the small group of academics, how many of them are actually complaining over freedom of speech ? The real social issue is wealth disparity. That's why it's ridiculous for anyone living in mainland China to take a Westerner's suggestion of democracy seriously. Like baubo said before, Chinese government is not a dictatorship, the chance for any leader to claim that role is buried after Mao and his grand mistakes. The Chinese state do have recourse for self-correction, even if slowly. Their party members come from all walks of life, it's very rare for the spouse of previous leadership to 'inherit' powers. In the United States people don't care much for politicians and government officials. We keep them in check as much as possible. When it comes down to the ideals of freedom(power to the people) basically everyone is for not against. Now, in your country you may not despise the politicians themselves any more or less but once you are exposed to living a free life its very difficult to go back. So I think I know which is superior. (I mean if someone told me what religion to be, or what to think, etc. that would be a big problem.) K time for you to go away now. You fail on several fronts. #1. You don't know much about the US gov't according to what you just said. #2. You know absolutely nothing about China except what is fed to you by media. (I'm saying this based on what you've shared so far. I could be wrong.) #3. You just claimed your way of life is superior. That's a dick move. Yes, and I will say it again, having freedom is better than not having freedom. That is so crazy to you isn't it?
So, you define freedom by the ability to be a tie-breaker in the odd case that the vote among the people of your state is exactly tied and your voice will decide? That if your state happens to be the one that decides this, and the vote is exactly even, AND nobody taints the vote (Florida?), then you might decide who is your near-omnipotent ruler? Or is it by the fact that you are allowed to say anything (like threatening the president while holding a gun outside the white house)? Or is it the fact that no one restricts your rights? Is it the fact that people can badmouth others on TV? You can shout "Obama sucks and is a communist son of a whore". Good for you. You also live in a country where the laws are as often as not decided by corporations, people's life savings go down the drain because some rich dudes play the stock market, where people like Donald Trump are heroes because everyone forgot how he fucked thousands and thousands of people up the ass and rich people are awesome, where teachers are treated like dirt and Paris Hilton like royalty. And you have nothing to do about it. Your opinions on the matter have no effect. You do NOT have the power to change this.
For the average Chinese person, life is about going to work, making sure that his family is well fed, has a nice house, etc. Same as anyone else. Their government, overall, is doing a fine job in developing their economy, taking care of medical care of it's people (much more so than the US), and has a lot of strong points. For most Chinese people, it doesn't interfere with life any more than the US government. Major companies do not change litigation by massive donations (like Microsoft, who was about to be split into smaller companies and then an election happened, the Attorney General was replaced, and their punishment was revised into giving free computers to schools - the only market Apple dominated). The crime rate is lower. People are safer, the level of education is rising steadily and by a very high rate as is the situation with the economy.
Defining freedom is a hard thing. Don't shout random slogans because a country has the common sense to say "wtf does manic-depressive behavior have to do with carrying 4kg of heroin? Does being extremely happy have any relation to this case? Does depression? No. As far as this case is concerned, he should be punished to the full extent of the law."
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 02 2010 08:08 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Yes, of course I'm irrelevant. This is a philosophical discussion and nothing more. Stop goading me, I don't like dealing with "YOU'RE USELESS SHUT UP" trolls.
There are really 2 discussions that I can see at work:
The "should the man have died?" discussion, which is what I feel this thread has reached, is pointless. Not because your argument is unsound, or because your view is insignificant, but because, given the nature of internet discussions on morality and ethics, very little headway is likely to be made by either side.
The "is there anything the family/British government should do about it?" discussion, is the other discussion, which is what I was addressing. The answer to that question, of course, is a resounding no. Regardless of whether the law is morally "right", there's no basis for creating an international hubbub over it. There's simply not a strong enough case in the defense of a drug trafficker for it. This isn't the 19th century anymore. If you're going to start a confrontation on the basis of a crime, you have to at least do a better job of looking like you've been victimized--and 4 kilos of heroin doesn't help you very much with that.
|
On January 03 2010 13:41 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 08:08 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Yes, of course I'm irrelevant. This is a philosophical discussion and nothing more. Stop goading me, I don't like dealing with "YOU'RE USELESS SHUT UP" trolls. There are really 2 discussions that I can see at work: The "should the man have died?" discussion, which is what I feel this thread has reached, is pointless. Not because your argument is unsound, or because your view is insignificant, but because, given the nature of internet discussions on morality and ethics, very little headway is likely to be made by either side.
On January 03 2010 13:38 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 13:33 StorkHwaiting wrote:
To TwoToneTerran:
You have persuaded me, FUCK YES EAT THAT INTERNET I CONVINCED SOMEONE TO CHANGE THEIR OPINION FUCK YOU YOU DAMN ELECTRICAL INFORMATION INTERFACE BITCH
8)
|
On January 03 2010 13:38 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 13:28 7Strife wrote:On January 03 2010 13:23 haduken wrote:
Come back when you are broke, late on your rent, got no food to feed your kids.
Then maybe you can talk about freedom in this context. I knew this extreme was going to come up. Now, however much you want to you will never be able to have everything you want. No one can bend the rules of physics so you are free to magically fly or have someone who pays all your bills. Does that mean you shouldn't be able to say or think as you wish also? Dude, please shutup. Not every country in the world is America, where they got to genocidally wipe out all the native inhabitants, fill the entire thing with immigrants from England, and then gradually filter in a few bits and pieces of other ethnicities and carefully control where they settled, then inundate them with consumerist culture until they lost nearly all previous sense of national or cultural identity. On top of that, isolate them geographically and strategically by having a country bordered by two oceans, peace-loving syrup farmers, and morally bankrupt drug barons that nobody in their right mind would ever ally with. Not every nation has these demographics. That's why not every nation can afford to give their citizens unbridled access to tons of information and entertainment. It takes at least a century of deep brainwashing through the public education system and then six decades of rampant consumerism for the citizenry to be complacent and stupid enough to have the liberty of free speech. Because they're so addled and patriotic at that point, the only speech they'll voice is about dumb things like creationism, generic pharmaceuticals, and whether the 16 yr old down the street should be able to abort.
I'm not arguing for the United States. I'm not even patriotic. I argue for certain ideas not flags.
|
To be fair, your values are intrinsically connected to your Flag.
|
United States47024 Posts
On January 03 2010 13:42 TwoToneTerran wrote:
8)
I said very little headway, not none at all. The fact that the argument has only moved that far (seeing as only part of the argument was conceded) in the last 5 pages since my previous post only strengthens my point.
|
And only one person was turned over to the other side, and only partially at that, and only in a section of the argument mostly unrelated to the original topic. But maybe when we reach 500 we'll get a person completely converted from one side to the other.
@7Strife: Face it, the average Chinese person does not base his opinion of his or her government based on whether or not they are violating a certain American's sense of morality based on the idea that property is wholly inviolable and nothing else is the purview of the law. The idea that there exist Inviolable human rights to life that cannot be forfeited through any action or the idea that people who inject heroin are making decisions that to themselves are rational at the time and therefore neither people who search for it nor the people who provide this service should be coerced in any way; well, the average Chinese person could give less of a fuck
|
Everyone who isn't an anarchist has only the freedoms their government allows them. Freedom is also quite relative depending on perspective. For example, do we have the freedom to choose our President? Yes and no. Popular vote doesn't actually decide it, nor can we actually pick anyone Since there are strict limitations on who can be President. Similarly, do we have freedom to say whatever we want? Yes and no. CIA does alter particularly "sensitive" information on public domain like wikipedia, etc. I can go on further but you get my point.
Though I'm not sure why I would continue bothering to respond to people who clearly made new accounts to troll  .
|
On January 03 2010 14:09 EmeraldSparks wrote:
And only one person was turned over to the other side, and only partially at that, and only in a section of the argument mostly unrelated to the original topic. But maybe when we reach 500 we'll get a person completely converted from one side to the other.
@7Strife: Face it, the average Chinese person does not base his opinion of his or her government based on whether or not they are violating a certain American's sense of morality based on the idea that property is wholly inviolable and nothing else is the purview of the law. The idea that there exist Inviolable human rights to life that cannot be forfeited through any action or the idea that people who inject heroin are making decisions that to themselves are rational at the time and therefore neither people who search for it nor the people who provide this service should be coerced in any way; well, the average Chinese person could give less of a fuck
I'm still in the lead! Eat it, internet!
|
Ladies ladies, stick to the topic. You guys are going way off into politics. Bringing 4kg of heroin into China is still really stupid, I don't believe he deserve much from the Chinese government anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
